Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Wickerman]

It was a murder investigation, Jon, very obviously with implications potentially pointing to a Ripper killing.

Yes Christer, and we can readily accept that all formal procedures were duly followed.

Furthermore, they ALSO knew that many a killer had been found and convicted due to the fact that victims often engage in fights with their killers, grabbing at them, trying to push them away - and ending up with a ripped-away button, textile strands, hair, blood; all sorts of things, in their hands or under their nails. There is no other part that is as vital to examine as the hands when it comes to murder victims! It is true today and was equally true and known back in 1888.

No question about it, but this depth of investigation is all covered as part of the formal autopsy. It is not something to be undertaken in darkness by insufficient lamp-light.

This tells me that when the right hand, probably invisible as long as Stride lay in her original position, was of paramount interest to the investigators as she was turned over, and that no effort was spared to find out if she held something in it - or had dropped something out of it. The PC:s would have shone their lights on the spots of interest and they would have been extremely keen to pick up whatever useful clue the hand would potentially yeld.

This is how I see it.

Sunrise on that Sunday morning was 5:59 am, the yard had already been washed down by 5:30 am, just as dawn was breaking. The order was given by the doctors (Phillips?), which means he/they had already concluded any search of the yard before 5:30.

Whatever they did, they used lamplight. And what would they be looking for? something large like a weapon?
A couple of squashed grapes, in blood & mud, and a piece of stalk of unknown size coupled with an odd piece of paper among any amount of litter will easily go unnoticed.
All I'm saying is that we should not casually dismiss that which could easily have been overlooked.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Lynn, would you be interested in my posting a drawing/caricature of William Morris riding a poney and climbing an ice wall in Iceland in the late 1870s? A new friend I've made at our conference has these. ;-)

[caz]

Nice try protecting your fave witness Wick, but it won't work. The police were already on to Packer after a couple days, and you're insisting being clueless a century and counting later! As for your and Caz' use of the term "minimalist Ripperology", you're simply using it in the sense of "selective Ripperology". Has nothing whatsoever to do with "minimalism".

Hi Maria,

Okay, 'selective' it is from now on, when I see 'minimalism' on a smaller scale. My use of the term originally was for those who throw absolutely everything out as irrelevant (the similarities between murders; the GSG; all the ripper letters; the apron; all the murders except two; Jack himself - you name it) in order to introduce a completely baseless, unprovable theory of their own that could barely survive on even the barest known facts of the case.

By the way, you mentioned a physical description matching (or resembling) Le Grand in Berner St? Could you just confirm for me who the witness was and what was the description? Thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Kaufmann

Hello Maria. Just saw this.

Those would be fine--better on the Kaufmann thread.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

To Caz:
Not that I'm trying or willing to be the vocabulary police here. :-)

By the way, you mentioned a physical description matching (or resembling) Le Grand in Berner St? Could you just confirm for me who the witness was and what was the description? Thanks.

Well, obviously I was referring to Pipeman as described by Schwartz, ergo, in my suspicion, by William Wess.

Those would be fine--better on the Kaufmann thread.

OK. Still need to get the sketches/caricatures though. I didn't get them from my colleague yet, I'll try to get them online tomorrow evening.
Sorry for the hasty responses, have been traveling by train all day, just arrived in Garmisch at the feet of the Bavarian Alps with a heavy cold (nose, throat, temperature, the whole 9 yards) and usually it's not advised to take antibiotics when snowboarding/ice skating, but we'll see how it goes.

[lynn cates]

sketches

Hello Maria. Whenever.

Hope you get better soon.

Did you say Garmish or gar nicht? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Garmisch-Partenkirchen (try saying that 10 times fast), hometown of Richard Strauss (of Salome/Rosenkavalier fame, not the Austrian one with the waltzes). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmisch-Partenkirchen).
Taking antibiotics, cough sirop (one that doesn't make you drowsy), nose drops, paracetamol, vitamins, you name it. :-) Put my cell alarm at 7.30, mainly to take my antibiotic, no clue if I'll feel up to getting up and going on the hill.
Apologies for the short highjack Lynn, and hope you're fine yourself.

[Tom_Wescott]

When you and Tom tossed out the grapes, and you tossed out Schwartz's account as bogus, that was how I saw ripper 'minimalism' at work on a smaller scale. They got in the way of your 'Grand' plan so they had to go.

Hi Caz. First, there is no 'you and Tom'. There is only Tom.

Secondly, what does 'throwing out the grapes' mean? It was determined at the time of the murder by witnesses, police, and the doctors, that Stride did not have grapes. Every reputable author on the case concurs with this view. Your comment explicitly states that as a writer I am dismissing evidence to fit a theory. If I had to do that in the case of Le Grand, I wouldn't bother exploring him. Incidentally, I wrote on the grapes BEFORE Le Grand was my suspect.

Also, I don't know if your comment about Schwartz was directed to myself as well as Maria, or only to Maria, but I have absolutely NOT concluded he was bogus. And for that matter, how does a witness describing a suspicious 6 ft tall 35 yo white man 'get in the way' of Le Grand as a suspect? If anything, it fully explains his subsequent cover-up actions in Berner Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Just a quick log in to say that I hope I haven't given out the impression that any of the research on the fictitious “grapes“ has had anything to do with myself. This is all old accomplished stuff, from Swanson to Yost to Wescott.
Plus let me stress again that I haven't yet concluded Schwartz's testimony was completely bogus. As I'll discuss in my article, part of his story might have well been true. I simply suspect that Schwartz was acquainted with the IWEC. And even this is NOT a new conclusion.

Going back to work, cuz if you can believe it, an editor emailed me on Easter Friday with the request to prepare an abstract for an article of mine for publication “immediately“. Would a Ripperology editor do likewise?

If you guys are interested though, I'm planning to get my hands on a sketch/caricature of William Morris circa 1876 climbing an ice wall in Iceland, spotting a prominent and scary/fat a$$ crack. Might even post it here, since I'm afraid not many people read the Kaufman thread.

[Tom_Wescott]

Just in case this confuses you further, I don't have a problem with anyone who has reasonable doubts about the grapes or reservations about Schwartz's account, based purely on what the historical record says about both; my problem is when an agenda is showing that has considerably less going for it than what is being discarded.

Caz, considering you don't normally have the reputation of a blowhard or conclusion-jumper, I'm surprised to see this coming from you. You have in fact jumped to a very incorrect and insulting conclusion about me. You might remember that I published a long essay on the grapes, Packer, etc. in Ripper Notes PRIOR to all the Le Grand research, most of which was turned up by Debs AFTER she read this very article. Prior to this and my other articles, the field had forgotten Liz and were doing nothing but publishing the same old stupid mistakes and myths. I made my intentions clear that my very extensive research into the Berner Street murder was motivated solely by getting the record straight, getting at the facts, and making sense of the data. I did this, even though a bunch of knuckleheads insist on ignoring it. Bottom line is my conclusions on this matter are the most supported, logical and likely conclusions. And just because some posters want to mention my name constantly in their posts does NOT give you right or reason to throw insults my way in the process of disagreeing or arguing with them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

On the grapes

I don't have a problem with anyone who has reasonable doubts about the grapes

And what's this about 'reasonable doubt' about there having been grapes? Last I checked, there's not a single witness on official record who saw any grapes? Diemshitz gave evidence at the inquest, but did he see grapes? No. This started with early newspaper reports, from the same reporters who wrote that Dr. Blackwell described Stride as nearly decapitated! It was Le Grand himself who took it to the next level with the Packer debacle.

In short, it's actually a documented fact that there were no grapes in Stride's hand, just as it's a documented fact that Packer lied about having sold her grapes.

The medical evidence found no trace of grape seeds, skins, or juice in her stomach, mouth, or clothing. The street was combed by police, yet no pile of grape skins were found. Numerous people saw her body in situ, saw the cachous, but did not see any grapes.

Isaac Kozebrodski spoke very broken English and seems to have been the original source from the grapes. Either he was mistaken or the reporters were mistaken, probably the former.

And exactly HOW would the presence of grapes get in the way of my Le Grand theory, when it was Le Grand himself who pulled a grapestalk from the club house gutter?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

grapes

Hi Tom

The Arbeter Fraint item published by some of those selfsame awkward Jews/Anarchists/Socialists who flocked into the yard reads:-

The pale face was green, the eyes tightly closed, the back hair disheveled, the neck sliced wide-open [and] bathed in blood. In one hand, the murdered woman held a bunch of grapes and in the other a box of candies. She was dressed in black: poor but clean. She wore a red flower on her breast.

Ok...not very fashionable nowdays to admit the presence of the grapes, but there has to be reasonable doubt, because those men were there on the spot...a few trampled grapes amidst the mud and blood just might've escaped attention...particularly if they'd been dislodged when/if the body was disturbed.

On the other hand I don't see the cachous as a box of candies!

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Dave. Yes, I've read that. But yet another mistaken newspaper report does not a fact make. The men who were there had nothing to do with the writing of this article. As you pointed out, there clearly erroneous mention of a 'box of candies' proves that no on-site reliable witness was involved in providing that detail. I believe one of the London newspapers actually said 'box of candies'. If I had the time, I'd look for it. That's almost certainly the source for the AF article. So no, there isn't nor has there ever been a reason to suspect that Stride held grapes any more than we should be discussing "Was Stride nearly decapitated" simply because a newspaper quoted Dr. Blackwell as saying so. A fact is a fact and it's an ascertained fact that she was not holding grapes when she was discovered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

And Diemschitz, in court, was never asked if he saw any grapes...

The only ones who claimed not to have seen grapes, arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Quite!

Dave