Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil. Thanks.

On the other hand, did hear of one bloke who was unable to kiss his girl good night. Teeth stuck together with taffy.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Ahh..taffy.. a good old American kind of toffee I seem to recall. Nothing to do with the Welsh. lol

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

important things first

Hello Phil. Thanks.

On the other hand, did hear of one bloke who was unable to kiss his girl good night. Teeth stuck together with taffy.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon.

"None, its a peripheral issue of no consequence in identifying the killer."

In general I agree. However, would you say that solicitation is less likely with food present in each hand?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Brings new meanings to the word "cuddle" perhaps? LOL

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

They are extreme's of course, while most researchers occupy a middle zone.
Minimalists tend to stick only to absolute facts, whereas maximalists might take every potential hypothesis available as a potential solution.

Neither should be regarded as the most reasonable path to follow, somewhere in the middle the truth lies.
(There's an oxymoron, "the truth lies")

Like here in many of these debates, we simply cannot ignore newspaper stories. Some will ignore them altogether, but the press is an amazing source at our disposal for this period. Why do you think the Casebook Press Reports is so well used?, because it is a valuable resource.
The difficulty always comes in when a particular news story is brought into a debate and predictably "someone" throws down the "unverified stories" card.

What the papers do tell us is the "word on the street" which is not to be so cavalierly dismissed. Certainly the maximalist view of believing everything is just as wrong as the minimalist view of dismissing everything.

It takes work to access how worthy a story might be when all points are considered.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Yes, I like this post alot. Newspapers have their weaknesses of course, but I must say that I get surprised that one newspaper is "regarded as" a greater source of truthful information than another. One has to take each article on its merits.
The Star perhaps has a bad reputation, because of blatantly trying to sell with sensationlism, whilst the Times and The Telegraph a better one. Lloyd's weekly and The Echo are newspapers I like to read the content of. But I am sure that the Star also picked up some fine pieces of information, and the Times reported some things poorly.

Good post of yours. Thank you.



kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

press

Hello (again) Jon. I tend to agree with that also. Of course, some press reports run counter to all other facts. In that case, one might approach with caution.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

food and solicitation

Hello Jon.

"None, its a peripheral issue of no consequence in identifying the killer."

In general I agree. However, would you say that solicitation is less likely with food present in each hand?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

From my perspective, minimal, maximal, makes no difference. I merely seek truth--whatever form it may take.

They are extreme's of course, while most researchers occupy a middle zone.
Minimalists tend to stick only to absolute facts, whereas maximalists might take every potential hypothesis available as a potential solution.

Neither should be regarded as the most reasonable path to follow, somewhere in the middle the truth lies.
(There's an oxymoron, "the truth lies")

Like here in many of these debates, we simply cannot ignore newspaper stories. Some will ignore them altogether, but the press is an amazing source at our disposal for this period. Why do you think the Casebook Press Reports is so well used?, because it is a valuable resource.
The difficulty always comes in when a particular news story is brought into a debate and predictably "someone" throws down the "unverified stories" card.

What the papers do tell us is the "word on the street" which is not to be so cavalierly dismissed. Certainly the maximalist view of believing everything is just as wrong as the minimalist view of dismissing everything.

It takes work to access how worthy a story might be when all points are considered.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon, Debs. Here's a question for all of us--whichever side of the grape divide we are on.

Q: "In terms of killer/killing models, what impact would the existence/non-existence of grapes have on it?"

Cheers.
LC

None, its a peripheral issue of no consequence in identifying the killer.

Neither Diemschitz nor Kozebrodski had reason to invent them. And, there is no reasonable model for "mistaken identity".
No-one saw grapes on Mary Kelly, Annie Chapman or Catherine Eddowes, where congealed & clotted blood was more abundant, grapes=clots is just plain ****
Nope, this issue is no more closed than the question of who wrote the GSG, and other unsolved issues.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

the grape divide

Hello Jon, Debs. Here's a question for all of us--whichever side of the grape divide we are on.

Q: "In terms of killer/killing models, what impact would the existence/non-existence of grapes have on it?"

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

to the max

Hello Rob.

"I think the way minimalist was used came across to me as a bit derogatory."

And if so, of course it would be wrong. But in ontology, it would be considered a great compliment.

From my perspective, minimal, maximal, makes no difference. I merely seek truth--whatever form it may take.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

It depends on what you are comparing him with. In "Mr Rogers Neighborhood" he would certainly stand out, but in Jack London's People of the Abyss , he's just part of the furniture.
Its all relative Debs. We tend to look upon the citizenry as honest and innocent yet this is the East end, an environment totally alien to our couch-potato lifestyle.
A local crook, confidence trickster, liar, charlatan, thief or pimp can still be a witness, especially as that might cover a number of the male population of Whitechapel at some point or other in their life.

Yes, Jon, I'm quite familiar with the East End population's criminal activity I have been studying the contemporary newspapers for a very long time. Grande had a specific past record for fabricating evidence and producing false witnesses.
At the time of the grapestalk 'find', no one at Scotland yard was aware of Grande's past.
These facts about Grande have to be factored into the bigger picture in my view, for the sake of balance.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
A grapestalk was found supposedly in the drain in DY, by an ex convict, thief, confidence trickster and blackmailer posing as a private detective, himself suspected as being Jack the Ripper by a Scotland Yard detective.

Yes Debs, I'm quite familiar with the conspiracy theory, but its only a theory. The fact remains the stalk was there and acknowledged by Swanson, how it got there is another matter.
Also, how old those fruit stains were is another consideration. But, not knowing is no reason to dismiss the evidence.

How reliable could anything that man produced in evidence be?

It depends on what you are comparing him with. In "Mr Rogers Neighborhood" he would certainly stand out, but in Jack London's People of the Abyss , he's just part of the furniture.
Its all relative Debs. We tend to look upon the citizenry as honest and innocent yet this is the East end, an environment totally alien to our couch-potato lifestyle.
A local crook, confidence trickster, liar, charlatan, thief or pimp can still be a witness, especially as that might cover a number of the male population of Whitechapel at some point or other in their life.

I do accept Phillips may have been being cautious in his wording because he was not 100 percent sure about whether he saw grape flesh or not, although I did post the excerpt to show that grape flesh may not have been as invisible to the naked eye in the stomach contents as some were suggesting,

And you were right to do so, it provided balance, a good find.

As long as both sides keep that in mind we'll all get along fine!

All the best, Jon S.

[Debra A]

So he saw no evidence of grapes on the ground "or connection with them", which might include a grape stalk, yet a grape stalk was found. He already admitted that her handkerchief bore fruit stains, so he is demonstrating his acknowledgement of conflicting points of evidence.
However, Phillips goes on to specify "no skins" and "no seeds" found within her intestines, we are left to wonder if he is intentionally omitting comment with respect to the existence of "fleshy" grape material because in this case he could not be so sure?

Hi Jon,
A grapestalk was found supposedly in the drain in DY, by an ex convict, thief, confidence trickster and blackmailer posing as a private detective, himself suspected as being Jack the Ripper by a Scotland Yard detective. This happened days after news about Liz holding grapes had been circulated. ...just to keep things in perspective. How reliable could anything that man produced in evidence be?
I do accept Phillips may have been being cautious in his wording because he was not 100 percent sure about whether he saw grape flesh or not, although I did post the excerpt to show that grape flesh may not have been as invisible to the naked eye in the stomach contents as some were suggesting, especially if Liz was eating the grapes close to the time of her death as suggested by her having them in her hand.

There's nothing conclusive either way but neither is their any reasonable justification for dismissing either argument. As always in this case we are left with possibilities.

Exactly. As long as both sides keep that in mind we'll all get along fine!

[Wickerman]

Liz was holding the grapes in her hand presumably because she was still busy eating them? Maybe right up until the moment of her death even? And the docs didn't see anything resembling grape flesh at all?

Debs.
Dr. Phillips tends to be a very precise and articulate professional. When we read over the cases he made observations on we can tell he can be very pointed, we must be very cautious about making broad assumptions. In this case Dr. Phillips specifically singled out what he did not see:

"Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes, or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death."

So he saw no evidence of grapes on the ground "or connection with them", which might include a grape stalk, yet a grape stalk was found. He already admitted that her handkerchief bore fruit stains, so he is demonstrating his acknowledgement of conflicting points of evidence.
However, Phillips goes on to specify "no skins" and "no seeds" found within her intestines, we are left to wonder if he is intentionally omitting comment with respect to the existence of "fleshy" grape material because in this case he could not be so sure?

If, so, then why wouldn't they have gone the whole hog and tested for fruit acids too?

Consider, at the time of the autopsy on Sunday, who was talking about grapes?, the first mention we read is by Diemschitz in the Monday evening papers. Therefore, at the autopsy Phillips may not have been able to single out the fleshy grape matter from the rest of the contents of her stomach, merely reflecting that the stomach contents certainly did not include seeds or skins.

What we have is apparent conflict, on the one hand no logical reason for anyone, let alone two independent witnesses, to suggest she carried any grapes at all. Spooner identified a paper packet in her right hand, next to the flower and, we have a fruit-stained handkerchief & a grape stalk.

Against this we have neither Blackwell nor Phillips noticing a few black grapes in the mud, in the dark, are we to expect they should?

There's nothing conclusive either way but neither is their any reasonable justification for dismissing either argument. As always in this case we are left with possibilities.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rob Clack]

Hello Neil. Why can't one have BOTH minimalists AND theorisers? Rather a symbiotic relationship?

As Kant pointed out, concepts and percepts must go together.

Cheers.
LC

I think the way minimalist was used came across to me as a bit derogatory.

Hello Rob. Thanks.

"There was a clubman (name escapes me at the moment) who took his girlfriend home and returned to the club around that time."

It was Morris Eagle. He claimed to have returned at 12.40--between the PC Smith sighting and the purported Schwartz event.

LC

Thanks that's the one.

Rob