Tweet
Revisiting the Grapes of Myth
I would like to publically apologize to Clive Johnson for ever having confused him with Fisherman. And while I'm on the subject...
The Whitechapel Society Journal published a series of exceptionally bad Stride essays. These began with a few by Bill Beadle and then two by Clive Johnson. Fisherman has now picked up where they left off in screwing up all the facts. If he publishes in any journal it would have to be WSJ. Both Ripperologist and RN have a history of and reputation for excellent Stride scholarship and Ripperana won't publish anything more than 5 words long. In hindsight, Clive Johnson emerges as the only one of the recent group who (thus far) presented an original observation of any possible value. In fact, he caught something I totally missed, and for that I give him mucho props.
In 'Berner Street Mystery Part 1' I babbled on about the alleged grapes in Stride's hand and surmised that because Diemschutz and Isaacs thought they saw grapes in Stride's right hand when there weren't any it was because they had mistaken the 'oblong clots' of blood for grapes at a glance. I admit it was a bit of a stretch but it was to my mind the ONLY explanation because these clots were the only thing in the vicinity of her hand.
Anyway, in WSJ #14 (June 2007), Mr. Johnson published his second Stride essay entitled 'The Mystery of the Missing Grapes.' During the course of this rather strange study, Mr. Johnson unwittingly made an observation that lends a good measure of support to my argument:
"There is testimony that two onlookers saw a packet [sic] of grapes in Liz's right hand. Club members Diemschutz and Kozebrodski reported that when one of the doctors examined Liz's body, they saw that there had been grapes in her hand. The Daily News of 1st October quoted Diemschutz's statement, 'Her hands were clenched, and when the doctors opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.' The wording does not convey that the fruit and sweets were in her hand, but that they had been."
Obviously, the cachous were in her hand, but this little paragraph got me thinking. Perhaps Diemschutz did not mistake the blood clots for grapes but for grape juice. It might be just semantics but perhaps Johnson is right and Diemschutz simply stated it looked like she had previously been holding grapes and this got muddled in the press as her having actual grapes in her hand when found. In any event, it seems the myth of the grapes could only have originated with Diemschutz misidentifying the blood clots.
So it doesn't seem like I hate everybody else's work on Stride, let me say that Gavin Bromley's recent essays in Ripperologist on Stride have been excellent, continuing the magazine's long tradition of great Stride scholarship from writers such as Daniel Olsson, Alex Chisholm, Dave Yost, and others. If only their history of Kelly scholarship were as spotless.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 08:44 AM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom Wescott writes:
"You posted my Ripper Notes quote? Where?"
08.00 pm yesterday, in yet anoother effort to make you comment on whether this assertoin of yours can be substantiated or not. Dozens of posts of yours have gone in this exchange, and still I am waitning for you to come up with that answer. Why is it that hard (as if I didnīt know...)?
I wrote thus:
By the way, since you in your earlier post could not remember exactly how you phrased that exchange between Lamb and the coroner (in Ripper Notes), here it is, free of charge:
“Coroner Baxter asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative”. Your exact wording, Tom. (Quoted from Ripper Notes)
And this is how you yourself quoted the source (Times) that led you to this embroidered version of the truth, “The Wescott truth” so to speak:
“Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”
Manipulation, anybody? Distortion, anybody? Tampering with the few bits and pieces of evidence we have, anybody?
My regards,
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 09:41 AM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom, it is your turn now, is it not? While you ponder your answer, I will add a few points of my own.
As for your view on Phillips giving himself an out, when you write...:
”No, I interepreted correctly...again. Phillips gave himself an out. People who are "big time convinced" don't give themselves an out like this. He left open the possibility that someone moved Stride's hand...”
...I take it that I am to believe that since Phillips is so adamant on the point that the arm was never moved after her death, this means that that he realized that it most probably WAS???
Why, thank you, Tom! Why did you not give this one away a lot sooner? Now, as for you being so adamant about Johnston having put the blood on Strides hand, I take it that what YOU really mean is that he obviously never did?
Be for real, Tom. If your arguments are going to take this turn, I cannot see how a productive discussion could come out of this. Have you never even pondered the possibility that what Phillips meant was that as nobody had detected the blood on it that was obviously there, the hand MUST have been lying where it was, out of sight, all the time. You see, Phillips must have been equally sure that the blood was not transferred by Johnston. He would also have known that the left hand was the one Johnson palpated, and therefore it stands to reason that the right one could NOT have been moved until Blackwell and Phillips saw it. And THAT was all the backing up Phillips needed for his assertion! So you may now finally put to rest the scenario of the unreliable doctors piecing together a conspiration to clear Johnstons name of something he never needed to be cleared of - it is utterly ridiculous, no more, no less.
As for your view about the amount of blood on the inside of the wrist, I would say that Swanson was very secondary to Phillips, who was IN the yard, and who SAW the hand. It made Phillips state that there was clotted blood on the back of the hand and the wrist, and when commenting the issue at the inquest he stated that it was a mystery, for there were small oblong clots of blood on the back of the hand. Please notice that he left out the wrist! The reasonable view of this would be that the amounts on the wrist were much smaller than those on the back of the hand.
I would also urge you to take a look in my dissertation before you keep going here. For this is what I write on the subject:
”My suggestion is that we try to imagine larger quantities of blood than what would have been the case if a professional pulse palpation had been carried out. Such a palpation would have resulted in a very clear set of fingerprints on the skin.
We must probably also add enough clots to diminish the doctors chances of recognizing them as a set of fingerprints, maybe six, seven, eight or more clots on the backside of the hand. Also, a larger bloodstain on the inside of the wrist should probably be expected, all of which something that would not have been the case with a medico involved.”
And why am I speaking of a larger bloodstain? Simply because I believe that the killer would have fumbled around with his thumb, trying to find that illusive pulse. If he kept his thumb in the vicinity of the pulse it would mean that his changing of the setting of the thumb would spread the blood to a larger surface. So much for that.
In any instance, your quotation of Swanson is: ‘Right arm over stomach, back of hand & inner surface of wrist dotted with blood.’
And Iīll be damned if I can use that sentence to establish HOW the dots were distributed. For all we know it could describe sixtytwo dots on the wrist, and two on the hand. But it could also mean that there was just the one dot on the wrist, and numerous ones on the back of the hand. And for some reason I do not think that Phillips would have ”forgotten” about the blood on the wrist at the inquest if the former alternative was the case. Do you?
Lastly, all the blood, all positioning of Stride, all neck buttons, all clumsy doctors aside, the fact remains that there are three factors, and three factors only, that are absolutely crucial to your theory:
1. You must be able to point out that Lamb DID answer in the negative, after having been quiried about the RIGHT hand by the coroner.
2. You must be able to point out that Strides position was such that her right hand across her chest was readily visible to Spooner.
3. You must be able to point out that Strides position was such that her right hand across her chest was readily visible also to Lamb.
If you cannot corroborate these three assumptions, you cannot state that there was ANY ground to believe that the right hand had been spotted and found bloodless before Blackwell saw it. And if there is no such ground, there is NOTHING to hold your theory up.
When my work on how Blackwells description of the position of Strides body is published (please, Spryder, we are waiting here ...!) the two latter points will be taken care of, since there will be nothing left to corroborate anything but a position where her right hand may well have been out of sight of both Spooner and Lamb - and in no way in their line of sight! That sight will have been directed towards Strides neck and left hand, and from a position behind Stride they will have had her neck and her left hand on their left hand side, whereas her right hand will have been on their right side, and hanging down deep behind Strides chest.
Point number one, however, only you posses the key to! You either recognize the fact that I have posted your exact wording on the matter from Ripper Notes and come up with an explanation and substantiation, or you do not. And it is not as if your ducking out of the discussion will point to your having the answer, but being reluctant to let the rest of the world take part of it.
No more hiding, no more ducking, no more semantics, Tom! Just the one clarification, please.
My regards,
Fisherman
Last edited by Fisherman : 21st September 2007 at 09:58 AM.
21st September 2007, 12:24 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom Wescott writes about my view of Swansons statement of the bloody right hand "Fisherman wants to SAY he did so he can call me an idiot".
Donīt flatter yourself, Tom. My efforts on this thread was never for a brief moment about YOU writing a theory substantiated by what cannot be substantiated. The way I see it, that theory could just as well have been cooked up by the Maharadja of Rawalpindi - long as it contains elements that never have and never will be correct, we owe it to the ones who study the case to point this out. Actually, that is to a large extent what these boards are all about.
So you see, your theory is what I am after here. As for your person, however; no way. To me, you are of no interest at all.
Likewise, the fact that you call me a pompous newbie and somebody who is screwing up all the facts is of little concern to me, as I am aware that it is the way you go about things.
I also know that if you cannot substantiate your claim that the coroner asked Lamb whether he had seen anything in her right hand, and that the good constable replied to this specific question in the negative, that will add heaps of interest to the debate on who is screwing up facts. Wouldnīt you agree?
My regards,
Fisherman
Last edited by Fisherman : 21st September 2007 at 12:27 PM.
21st September 2007, 12:53 PM
SolarPenguin
Police Constable Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
((DELURKS))
Hello everyone. I know I'm only a lurker, but I just had to step forward and say this... It's amazing how you can make such a big, bitter argument out of something as trivial and unimportant as which officials and/or bystanders transferred which dots of blood to Stride's hand in which order!
I guess I'm not cut out for Ripper research because I can't even begin to be interested in such a pointless question, but it's VERY entertaining watching you all making fools of yourselves over it.
21st September 2007, 01:02 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Thanks, SolarPenguin!
If you have a minute over for a fool, I will offer a brief explanation:
Tom Wescott wants to rule out the hand as a genuine piece of crime evidence. I do not. If Tom can substantiate his view, it will do his theory of Jack being Strides killer a lot of good. If he cannot, he is faced with the obvious possibility of having to ponder ruling Stride out of the canonical five.
Happy to have entertained you, sorry to not have pointed out the importance of the issue, I can only offer the usual advice of shifting to another channel. There are lots of them here!
The battle on this very thread has only one question left to answer, and if Tom Wescott obliges us on that point, we may not have to take up your time fortwith!
My regards, SolarPenguin!
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 04:52 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Fisherman,
All I have to say about your latest round of nonsense is this - check around for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th opinions on my interpretation of Phillips and you will find that all rational minds except your own interpret his words as I do. As I predicted you're now completely lost in semantics in an attempt to turn attention away from yourself. Playing your own game I'll point out that since coroner Baxter asked PC Lamb if he'd examined "her hands" and he DID reply in the negative, how is there anything misleading in what I wrote? Are you suggesting that PC Lamb DID examine the right hand? Anyway, I'm tired of all your negativity if it's no longer going to be centered around real discussion. Please visit the thread I started on Michael Kidney if you wish. Your input would be appreciated.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 04:55 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Solarpenguin,
It could be said that the only thing more pathetic than partaking in a pointless debate is sitting silently and WATCHING others debate pointless issues. Adios.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 06:38 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
And there we are! It has carried a resemblance of pulling a tooth out of an iron jaw, but at the end of the rainbow there is sometimes a pot of gold:
Tom Wescott finally admits/states: "Playing your own game I'll point out that since coroner Baxter asked PC Lamb if he'd examined "her hands" and he DID reply in the negative, how is there anything misleading in what I wrote?"
The misleading here is totally obvious to everybody, I should say, as Tom adamantly stated that the coroners question was posed about the RIGHT hand of Stride, and the statement that Lamb answered in the negative to that question was of course passed of as evidence for Lamb having seen Strides hand in an unbloodied state.
We have now been informed that this was not true, and thus one of the main supports for the Wescott scenario no longer obscures the sight.
For those not familiar with the issue, let it be known that Tom Wescott in Ripper Notes 25 (January 2006) stated that
"Coroner Baxter asked if he (Lamb) had noticed anything in the right hand (of Stride), and he (Lamb) replied in the negative"
It has now, through Wescotts own admittance become clear that this assertion of his rested solely on the quotation from the inquest, as recorded in the Times:
“Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”.
In short, like I have been saying all the time, under a steady bombardment from Wescotts side where I was accused of distorting evidence and “screwing up all the facts”, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF OF LAMB EVER SEEING STRIDES RIGHT HAND!
In reluctant admiration: Thank you Tom, for giving up this battle and leaving the field open to research into the mystery of the right hand without adding prejudices to it. I wish that it had happened before, though, as it would have saved us both many harsh words. Lets try to do without them in the future; it would be much more productive. You already have my admittance that yours is a vast knowledge of the details. I hope I have your assertion that you will not set out the next time by accusing me of screwing up facts.
My regards,
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 07:05 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Quote:Originally Posted by Fisherman
The misleading here is totally obvious to everybody, I should say,
Is that so? Then I'll look forward to some Casebook regulars other than AP and Glenn popping up to agree with you. Incidentally, the rest of your post about me and my evidence - as usual - was completely wrong. My entire argument regarding the bloody hand is sound and will remain the most sound interpretation for the simple reason that it is. I'm sorry that pains you so. If you're done making an ass of yourself drop a ball and pop on over to the Kidney thread.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Hello you all!
I have joined this conversation at times and I think, that it's worth continuing!
All the best
Jukka
I would like to publically apologize to Clive Johnson for ever having confused him with Fisherman. And while I'm on the subject...
The Whitechapel Society Journal published a series of exceptionally bad Stride essays. These began with a few by Bill Beadle and then two by Clive Johnson. Fisherman has now picked up where they left off in screwing up all the facts. If he publishes in any journal it would have to be WSJ. Both Ripperologist and RN have a history of and reputation for excellent Stride scholarship and Ripperana won't publish anything more than 5 words long. In hindsight, Clive Johnson emerges as the only one of the recent group who (thus far) presented an original observation of any possible value. In fact, he caught something I totally missed, and for that I give him mucho props.
In 'Berner Street Mystery Part 1' I babbled on about the alleged grapes in Stride's hand and surmised that because Diemschutz and Isaacs thought they saw grapes in Stride's right hand when there weren't any it was because they had mistaken the 'oblong clots' of blood for grapes at a glance. I admit it was a bit of a stretch but it was to my mind the ONLY explanation because these clots were the only thing in the vicinity of her hand.
Anyway, in WSJ #14 (June 2007), Mr. Johnson published his second Stride essay entitled 'The Mystery of the Missing Grapes.' During the course of this rather strange study, Mr. Johnson unwittingly made an observation that lends a good measure of support to my argument:
"There is testimony that two onlookers saw a packet [sic] of grapes in Liz's right hand. Club members Diemschutz and Kozebrodski reported that when one of the doctors examined Liz's body, they saw that there had been grapes in her hand. The Daily News of 1st October quoted Diemschutz's statement, 'Her hands were clenched, and when the doctors opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.' The wording does not convey that the fruit and sweets were in her hand, but that they had been."
Obviously, the cachous were in her hand, but this little paragraph got me thinking. Perhaps Diemschutz did not mistake the blood clots for grapes but for grape juice. It might be just semantics but perhaps Johnson is right and Diemschutz simply stated it looked like she had previously been holding grapes and this got muddled in the press as her having actual grapes in her hand when found. In any event, it seems the myth of the grapes could only have originated with Diemschutz misidentifying the blood clots.
So it doesn't seem like I hate everybody else's work on Stride, let me say that Gavin Bromley's recent essays in Ripperologist on Stride have been excellent, continuing the magazine's long tradition of great Stride scholarship from writers such as Daniel Olsson, Alex Chisholm, Dave Yost, and others. If only their history of Kelly scholarship were as spotless.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 08:44 AM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom Wescott writes:
"You posted my Ripper Notes quote? Where?"
08.00 pm yesterday, in yet anoother effort to make you comment on whether this assertoin of yours can be substantiated or not. Dozens of posts of yours have gone in this exchange, and still I am waitning for you to come up with that answer. Why is it that hard (as if I didnīt know...)?
I wrote thus:
By the way, since you in your earlier post could not remember exactly how you phrased that exchange between Lamb and the coroner (in Ripper Notes), here it is, free of charge:
“Coroner Baxter asked if he had noticed anything in the right hand, and he replied in the negative”. Your exact wording, Tom. (Quoted from Ripper Notes)
And this is how you yourself quoted the source (Times) that led you to this embroidered version of the truth, “The Wescott truth” so to speak:
“Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”
Manipulation, anybody? Distortion, anybody? Tampering with the few bits and pieces of evidence we have, anybody?
My regards,
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 09:41 AM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom, it is your turn now, is it not? While you ponder your answer, I will add a few points of my own.
As for your view on Phillips giving himself an out, when you write...:
”No, I interepreted correctly...again. Phillips gave himself an out. People who are "big time convinced" don't give themselves an out like this. He left open the possibility that someone moved Stride's hand...”
...I take it that I am to believe that since Phillips is so adamant on the point that the arm was never moved after her death, this means that that he realized that it most probably WAS???
Why, thank you, Tom! Why did you not give this one away a lot sooner? Now, as for you being so adamant about Johnston having put the blood on Strides hand, I take it that what YOU really mean is that he obviously never did?
Be for real, Tom. If your arguments are going to take this turn, I cannot see how a productive discussion could come out of this. Have you never even pondered the possibility that what Phillips meant was that as nobody had detected the blood on it that was obviously there, the hand MUST have been lying where it was, out of sight, all the time. You see, Phillips must have been equally sure that the blood was not transferred by Johnston. He would also have known that the left hand was the one Johnson palpated, and therefore it stands to reason that the right one could NOT have been moved until Blackwell and Phillips saw it. And THAT was all the backing up Phillips needed for his assertion! So you may now finally put to rest the scenario of the unreliable doctors piecing together a conspiration to clear Johnstons name of something he never needed to be cleared of - it is utterly ridiculous, no more, no less.
As for your view about the amount of blood on the inside of the wrist, I would say that Swanson was very secondary to Phillips, who was IN the yard, and who SAW the hand. It made Phillips state that there was clotted blood on the back of the hand and the wrist, and when commenting the issue at the inquest he stated that it was a mystery, for there were small oblong clots of blood on the back of the hand. Please notice that he left out the wrist! The reasonable view of this would be that the amounts on the wrist were much smaller than those on the back of the hand.
I would also urge you to take a look in my dissertation before you keep going here. For this is what I write on the subject:
”My suggestion is that we try to imagine larger quantities of blood than what would have been the case if a professional pulse palpation had been carried out. Such a palpation would have resulted in a very clear set of fingerprints on the skin.
We must probably also add enough clots to diminish the doctors chances of recognizing them as a set of fingerprints, maybe six, seven, eight or more clots on the backside of the hand. Also, a larger bloodstain on the inside of the wrist should probably be expected, all of which something that would not have been the case with a medico involved.”
And why am I speaking of a larger bloodstain? Simply because I believe that the killer would have fumbled around with his thumb, trying to find that illusive pulse. If he kept his thumb in the vicinity of the pulse it would mean that his changing of the setting of the thumb would spread the blood to a larger surface. So much for that.
In any instance, your quotation of Swanson is: ‘Right arm over stomach, back of hand & inner surface of wrist dotted with blood.’
And Iīll be damned if I can use that sentence to establish HOW the dots were distributed. For all we know it could describe sixtytwo dots on the wrist, and two on the hand. But it could also mean that there was just the one dot on the wrist, and numerous ones on the back of the hand. And for some reason I do not think that Phillips would have ”forgotten” about the blood on the wrist at the inquest if the former alternative was the case. Do you?
Lastly, all the blood, all positioning of Stride, all neck buttons, all clumsy doctors aside, the fact remains that there are three factors, and three factors only, that are absolutely crucial to your theory:
1. You must be able to point out that Lamb DID answer in the negative, after having been quiried about the RIGHT hand by the coroner.
2. You must be able to point out that Strides position was such that her right hand across her chest was readily visible to Spooner.
3. You must be able to point out that Strides position was such that her right hand across her chest was readily visible also to Lamb.
If you cannot corroborate these three assumptions, you cannot state that there was ANY ground to believe that the right hand had been spotted and found bloodless before Blackwell saw it. And if there is no such ground, there is NOTHING to hold your theory up.
When my work on how Blackwells description of the position of Strides body is published (please, Spryder, we are waiting here ...!) the two latter points will be taken care of, since there will be nothing left to corroborate anything but a position where her right hand may well have been out of sight of both Spooner and Lamb - and in no way in their line of sight! That sight will have been directed towards Strides neck and left hand, and from a position behind Stride they will have had her neck and her left hand on their left hand side, whereas her right hand will have been on their right side, and hanging down deep behind Strides chest.
Point number one, however, only you posses the key to! You either recognize the fact that I have posted your exact wording on the matter from Ripper Notes and come up with an explanation and substantiation, or you do not. And it is not as if your ducking out of the discussion will point to your having the answer, but being reluctant to let the rest of the world take part of it.
No more hiding, no more ducking, no more semantics, Tom! Just the one clarification, please.
My regards,
Fisherman
Last edited by Fisherman : 21st September 2007 at 09:58 AM.
21st September 2007, 12:24 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Tom Wescott writes about my view of Swansons statement of the bloody right hand "Fisherman wants to SAY he did so he can call me an idiot".
Donīt flatter yourself, Tom. My efforts on this thread was never for a brief moment about YOU writing a theory substantiated by what cannot be substantiated. The way I see it, that theory could just as well have been cooked up by the Maharadja of Rawalpindi - long as it contains elements that never have and never will be correct, we owe it to the ones who study the case to point this out. Actually, that is to a large extent what these boards are all about.
So you see, your theory is what I am after here. As for your person, however; no way. To me, you are of no interest at all.
Likewise, the fact that you call me a pompous newbie and somebody who is screwing up all the facts is of little concern to me, as I am aware that it is the way you go about things.
I also know that if you cannot substantiate your claim that the coroner asked Lamb whether he had seen anything in her right hand, and that the good constable replied to this specific question in the negative, that will add heaps of interest to the debate on who is screwing up facts. Wouldnīt you agree?
My regards,
Fisherman
Last edited by Fisherman : 21st September 2007 at 12:27 PM.
21st September 2007, 12:53 PM
SolarPenguin
Police Constable Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
((DELURKS))
Hello everyone. I know I'm only a lurker, but I just had to step forward and say this... It's amazing how you can make such a big, bitter argument out of something as trivial and unimportant as which officials and/or bystanders transferred which dots of blood to Stride's hand in which order!
I guess I'm not cut out for Ripper research because I can't even begin to be interested in such a pointless question, but it's VERY entertaining watching you all making fools of yourselves over it.
21st September 2007, 01:02 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
Thanks, SolarPenguin!
If you have a minute over for a fool, I will offer a brief explanation:
Tom Wescott wants to rule out the hand as a genuine piece of crime evidence. I do not. If Tom can substantiate his view, it will do his theory of Jack being Strides killer a lot of good. If he cannot, he is faced with the obvious possibility of having to ponder ruling Stride out of the canonical five.
Happy to have entertained you, sorry to not have pointed out the importance of the issue, I can only offer the usual advice of shifting to another channel. There are lots of them here!
The battle on this very thread has only one question left to answer, and if Tom Wescott obliges us on that point, we may not have to take up your time fortwith!
My regards, SolarPenguin!
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 04:52 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Fisherman,
All I have to say about your latest round of nonsense is this - check around for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th opinions on my interpretation of Phillips and you will find that all rational minds except your own interpret his words as I do. As I predicted you're now completely lost in semantics in an attempt to turn attention away from yourself. Playing your own game I'll point out that since coroner Baxter asked PC Lamb if he'd examined "her hands" and he DID reply in the negative, how is there anything misleading in what I wrote? Are you suggesting that PC Lamb DID examine the right hand? Anyway, I'm tired of all your negativity if it's no longer going to be centered around real discussion. Please visit the thread I started on Michael Kidney if you wish. Your input would be appreciated.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 04:55 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Solarpenguin,
It could be said that the only thing more pathetic than partaking in a pointless debate is sitting silently and WATCHING others debate pointless issues. Adios.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
21st September 2007, 06:38 PM
Fisherman
Chief Inspector Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 593
And there we are! It has carried a resemblance of pulling a tooth out of an iron jaw, but at the end of the rainbow there is sometimes a pot of gold:
Tom Wescott finally admits/states: "Playing your own game I'll point out that since coroner Baxter asked PC Lamb if he'd examined "her hands" and he DID reply in the negative, how is there anything misleading in what I wrote?"
The misleading here is totally obvious to everybody, I should say, as Tom adamantly stated that the coroners question was posed about the RIGHT hand of Stride, and the statement that Lamb answered in the negative to that question was of course passed of as evidence for Lamb having seen Strides hand in an unbloodied state.
We have now been informed that this was not true, and thus one of the main supports for the Wescott scenario no longer obscures the sight.
For those not familiar with the issue, let it be known that Tom Wescott in Ripper Notes 25 (January 2006) stated that
"Coroner Baxter asked if he (Lamb) had noticed anything in the right hand (of Stride), and he (Lamb) replied in the negative"
It has now, through Wescotts own admittance become clear that this assertion of his rested solely on the quotation from the inquest, as recorded in the Times:
“Lamb: "...I put my hand on the face and found it slightly warm. I then felt the wrist, but could not feel the pulse.
Coroner: "Did you do anything else to the body?
Lamb: I did not, and would not allow any one to get near the body. Deceased was lying on her side, and her left arm was lying under her.
Coroner: Did you examine her hands?
Lamb: I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast”.
In short, like I have been saying all the time, under a steady bombardment from Wescotts side where I was accused of distorting evidence and “screwing up all the facts”, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF OF LAMB EVER SEEING STRIDES RIGHT HAND!
In reluctant admiration: Thank you Tom, for giving up this battle and leaving the field open to research into the mystery of the right hand without adding prejudices to it. I wish that it had happened before, though, as it would have saved us both many harsh words. Lets try to do without them in the future; it would be much more productive. You already have my admittance that yours is a vast knowledge of the details. I hope I have your assertion that you will not set out the next time by accusing me of screwing up facts.
My regards,
Fisherman
21st September 2007, 07:05 PM
tom_wescott
Commissioner Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,158
Quote:Originally Posted by Fisherman
The misleading here is totally obvious to everybody, I should say,
Is that so? Then I'll look forward to some Casebook regulars other than AP and Glenn popping up to agree with you. Incidentally, the rest of your post about me and my evidence - as usual - was completely wrong. My entire argument regarding the bloody hand is sound and will remain the most sound interpretation for the simple reason that it is. I'm sorry that pains you so. If you're done making an ass of yourself drop a ball and pop on over to the Kidney thread.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Hello you all!
I have joined this conversation at times and I think, that it's worth continuing!
All the best
Jukka