Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Rob Clack]

I assume you're referring to the Echo/Scotsman report, and not to the Star about the police allegedly not trusting Schwartz?
Sometimes one has to read between the lines, Rob. Why would Wess waste time mentioning an uncorroborated second hand story to a journalist? William Wess was a relatively successful businessman and a politician of sorts, he wasn't some wannabe self-important old lady running her mouth to anyone who would listen, à la Fanny Mortimer, just to be in the papers and maybe make a buck (OK: a penny) in the process.
Rob, sometimes ;-) I think you're sooo the minimalist that your right arm is not taking into consideration what the left arm's doing. Which is actually pretty useful for a photographer. By the by, mid next week I hope to go take a look at the inventaries for Bertillon at the Paris Archives Nationales, if you're interested.

What you are doing is speculating without any facts to back up your conclusions. I rarely do that and don't often post them. They are after all just opinion.
I was talking about the Areter Fraint article. No mention of Schwartz anywhere. If he was a club member then there would be mention in the article of him and what he saw that night.
If you want some of my minimalistic interpretation of facts that aren't there. I think there is a possibility BS man was a club member who was evicting Stride from the premises, things got out of hand and he cut her throat. That's just my opinion.
Since you know a lot about Wess, how good was his Hungarian?

Rob

[lynn cates]

choir

Hello Debs. Thanks, but you may be preaching to the choir.

In my puny mind, no grapes, no malted liquor mean just that.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

speculation

Hello Rob.

"I think there is a possibility BS man was a club member who was evicting Stride from the premises, things got out of hand and he cut her throat. That's just my opinion."

Hmm, I've waited a long time for such a speculative tit bit from you. I like this a lot and have only 2 problems with it, so far as I can see.

1. If the story is correct in all its parts, it seems singular that BS was coming from Commercial road. Is this a case of a club man going home then changing agenda? Perhaps a mistake on Schwartz's behalf?

2. If BS is trying to evict Liz, it was happening outside the gates. It seems, then, that we need a plausible sequence whereby Liz subsequently goes INTO the yard, puts cachous in hand, then begins to EXIT the yard. And of course this must be dovetailed with the inchoate eviction.

Any speculation is greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Labels

Maria,

This trend you have adopted from Tom, the use of labels to describe researchers, it smacks of pigeonholed thinking, the irony.

Its the 'minimalists' that keep this case on the straight and narrow. The 'minimalists' keep it within the realms of reality and not into your domain of the 'fantasists'.

It seems that some are picking up half truths, painting with with their interpretation and marking them as fact.

Everything seems to be a fact today, there is a genuine lack of, or reluctence, to understand the difference.

As for Rob being a minimalist, I've exchanged views with him privately and can state he is one of the best theorists around. The difference is he doesn't stretch the facts nor the probability.

Such sweeping comments only shows ignorance.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Is that a trick question?

Rob

No...but a suggestion...

Dave

[Rob Clack]

1. If the story is correct in all its parts, it seems singular that BS was coming from Commercial road. Is this a case of a club man going home then changing agenda? Perhaps a mistake on Schwartz's behalf?

Hi Lynn,

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

2. If BS is trying to evict Liz, it was happening outside the gates. It seems, then, that we need a plausible sequence whereby Liz subsequently goes INTO the yard, puts cachous in hand, then begins to EXIT the yard. And of course this must be dovetailed with the inchoate eviction.

Yes tricky, Stride didn't scream to loudly so she may not have been to alarmed about her safety and followed BS man into the yard to continue the argument? Walked in around in front of him so as she was looking at him she was facing the exit?

Rob

[Rob Clack]

No...but a suggestion...

Dave

Of course he existed, there is no doubt about it.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Maria,

This trend you have adopted from Tom, the use of labels to describe researchers, it smacks of pigeonholed thinking, the irony.

Its the 'minimalists' that keep this case on the straight and narrow. The 'minimalists' keep it within the realms of reality and not into your domain of the 'fantasists'.

It seems that some are picking up half truths, painting with with their interpretation and marking them as fact.

Everything seems to be a fact today, there is a genuine lack of, or reluctence, to understand the difference.

As for Rob being a minimalist, I've exchanged views with him privately and can state he is one of the best theorists around. The difference is he doesn't stretch the facts nor the probability.

Such sweeping comments only shows ignorance.

Monty

Thanks but I think it will fall on deaf ears.

Rob

[lynn cates]

symbiosis

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

[lynn cates]

details

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.

"Yes tricky, Stride didn't scream to loudly so she may not have been too alarmed about her safety and followed BS man into the yard to continue the argument? Walked in around in front of him so as she was looking at him she was facing the exit?"

That is almost exactly Christer's view.

Of course, something must have triggered such a violent outburst.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

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

All legitimate disciplines have minimalists, maximalists, theorists & synthesists. The problem here is that some "fantasists" try to use these labels in a disrespectful & condescending manner.
Unfortunately, there are even a few who have an overblown sense of their own importance who repeatedly throw scorn on anyone who disagree's with them.

Still, so long as we know what to expect, and from whom, it all adds to the amusment of the Casebook environment.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

R-E-S-P-E-C-T (sorry, couldn't resist)

Hello Jon. Quite. But again there are those in the other camp who do the same.

I daresay that being less than fully respectful is a function of personality, NOT of the aggregate of views one holds nor how closely they conform to the standard--if one exists.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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!