Arbeter Fraint's Take

[mariab]

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).

Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).

[Tom_Wescott]

Dave,

You're backing the wrong horse in Dave. Wickerman is Mr. Ed, always talking, always looking for his Wilbur. Are you to be his Wilbur?

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

Quite!

Dave

Quite what? Quite a load of horse (Mr. Ed) crap? I agree, since Abraham Heshburg was VERY early on the scene and got so close as to describe the paper the cachous were wrapped in (tissue) and estimate the number of cachous (6 or 7) but saw no grapes. Edward Spooner likewise saw the cachous paper in her hand, but no grapes. Then Edward Johnston showed up, felt for a pulse, transferring blood to her hand (which was empty of grapes, by the way) and suddenly Isaac Kozebrodski (and possibly Diemshitz) believed they saw grapes. So, quite in contrast to what Wick says, which is that everyone who saw her BEFORE her hand was moved saw grapes, we have a host of witnesses, which include clubmen, passersby, Blackwell's own assistant, and the man who spent the most amount of time in direct proximity with the body (Spooner), all completely ignorant of grapes in her hand.

There's something we occasionally do here called 'evaluating evidence' in which we look at the evidence pro and the evidence con and see which stacks higher. In the case of 'Were there grapes?' you have a mountain of evidence proving beyond a doubt that there were not, and you have what for evidence proving their was? A newspaper interview taken with a teenager who could barely speak English and the thoroughly disproven word of Packer. Which side of a fence like this a researcher chooses to stand on tells the world an awful lot about his personality, motivation, ego, and ability to comprehend. Then, of course, there's those annoying buggers who simply sit on the various fences, making life tough for the rest of us.

Yours truly,

Secretariat

[Wickerman]

Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).

In what way Maria?

[Hunter]

This is Diemshitz's statement to the press as reported in the Daily News, Oct. 1:

'It seemed to me that her clothes were in perfect order. I could see that her throat was fearfully cut. She had dark clothes on, and wore a black crape bonnet. Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other.'

Whichever 'doctor' opened her hands - as Diemshitz described upon seeing the grapes - never testified that there were grapes in either hand, which he would have seen just as well as the club stewart could.

Diemshitz's testimony at the inquest as reported by the London Times on Oct. 2:

'The CORONER. - Did you notice her hands?
Witness. - I did not notice what position her hands were in. I only noticed that the dress buttons of her dress were undone. I saw the doctor put his hand inside and tell the police that the body was quite warm. The doctor also told one of the constables to feel the body, and he did so.'

He saw grapes in her hand but did not notice what position either of them were in?

No, Mr. Diemshitz was not specifically asked if he saw grapes, nor did he mention grapes in his response, but it is obvious why he was asked the question and the answer - under oath - discounts his statement to the press.

[Wickerman]

Diemshitz's testimony at the inquest as reported by the London Times on Oct. 2:

'The CORONER. - Did you notice her hands?
Witness. - I did not notice what position her hands were in.'

He saw grapes in her hand but did not notice what position either of them were in?

And yet, you have no trouble accepting Mr Johnson's testimony, when he offers much the same scenario.

Mr Johnson felt the hands, ....."which were quite cold."
I saw the left hand was lying away from the body, and the arm was bent. The right arm was also bent. The left hand might have been on the ground.

Yet Baxter specifically asked, "Did you look at the hands?"

Witness. - No.

Mr Johnson was well able to see & do much while not looking at the hands, and you have no problem with his statement.

Cris, it should be quite apparent that Johnson also meant he was not looking at the specific posture of her hands, whether clenched or relaxed, not that he did not look at them at all. The same is how we should be interpreting what Diemschitz said.

Diemschitz is not noticing whether her fingers were clenched, relaxed or opened out. That is not noticing the position of her hands.
He was not asked if there was anything in her hands.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Hi Jon,

The first person to acknowledge examining Stride's hands was Dr. Blackwell; where he found that she was holding the paper wrapped cachous in the left hand and the blood on the right. Johnston, who was called to testify after Blackwell stated that he didn't notice the cachous or the blood. In other words, he did not open the hands. He obviously noticed the position of the hands because he stated as such.

In Diemshitz's press statement, he says he watched 'the doctor' open her clenched hands and noticed that she had been holding sweetmeats in one and grapes in the other. Blackwell was the first person to testify doing what Diemshitz described and mentioned no grapes, but did mention the right hand being open.

Now, either Diemshitz was referring to Blackwell and mistook the blood smears for grapes, or Johnston was lying under oath and had, indeed examined the victim's hands and dislodged the grapes. If Diemshitz had seen grapes in Stride's hands, he would have had to notice their position because he would have been looking at them.

And, if Diemshitz had seen grapes in Stride's right hand, why didn't he mention it at the inquest when asked if he noticed the victim's hands? "Yes, just like I told the reporter, I saw she had been holding sweetmeats in one hand and grapes in the other." Instead, he gave an evasive answer for some reason; probably so he would no perjure himself under oath.

[mariab]

As usual, good post #486 from Hunter.

Now, either Diemshitz was referring to Blackwell and mistook the blood smears for grapes, or Johnston was lying under oath and had, indeed examined the victim's hands and dislodged the grapes.

Or Johnston was lying under oath and had compromised the scene, smearing blood from her throat on Stride's hands, as clearly someone had unbuttoned her dress before Dr. Blackwell arrived. Maybe Blackwell was even covering up for Johnston's inexperience? Now call me a conspiracist.

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

Could it be that Wickerman has changed his mind? This is really big of you (no irony intended).

In what way Maria?

Apologies, was too quick in reading this thread yesterday and not payed real attention. Thought Wick said “The only ones who claimed to have seen grapes arrived after her right hand had been touched, moved, disturbed (pulse taken).“ Missed the negative in Wick's sentence, a proof that it's not just the double negative in the GSG that keeps confusing people, sometimes a simple negative is trouble enough! In reality I was very much surprised in my misconception that Wickerman had changed his mind and had started interpreting the facts according to evidence, though his willing to consider the “before and after“ occurence of facts is already a step in the right direction in my opinion.
Sorry for the hasty response and the lack of attention, but I gotta run. (Gotta work out, as I'm trying to shake this cold and get done de-bloating, on my way to becoming the incredible hulk so that I can train with the Pros here. Modest wants, I know.)

[caz]

Numerous people saw her body in situ, saw the cachous, but did not see any grapes...

...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?

Hi Tom,

You appear to be confusing me with someone who cares as passionately as you do about the whole grapes mess. I don't. I just look at other people's arguments and comment if they appear contrived or are unsupported.

If Le Grand was there when Stride died, because he was the one who overpowered her, cut her throat and left her dying, would he not have been one of your 'numerous' people, and in an ideal position to know if both her hands were clutching something at the time? No grapes means that he saw no grapes, and one of her hands must have been free when he attacked her. Why wind up Packer into telling a pointless and easily disproven lie involving grapes that Le Grand had no reason to believe she was clutching when he killed her?

I thought your theory was that Le Grand planted the grapestalk himself to bolster the lie he got Packer to tell for him. Are you now saying he could have found it naturally but still felt the need for this elaborate charade?

Look, Tom, I'm more than happy to conclude that someone was mistaken about grapes ever being in Stride's hand, although I doubt her killer would have been similarly mistaken. I'm slightly less happy with it being stated as fact that Packer did not sell grapes to anyone in Stride's company, simply because he changed his story and was therefore considered unreliable. No evidence for something can't prove a negative.

Discarding the whole grape story for lack of positive evidence or reliable witness testimony is fine; but you have to apply it Le Grand too, since there is no evidence at all for his presence in the yard when Stride was killed, and Schwartz's story would need to be 100% reliable, with his description of Pipeman demonstrably matching Le Grand beyond reasonable doubt. (The fact that the pipe turned into a knife does more harm than good in this regard. No grapes, no knife.) And there is still no evidence that the killer was Pipeman, waiting for the chance to kill Stride for unknown reasons. It's all speculation, based on precious little.

If the grapes have to go from that yard, so does Le Grand, for almost identical reasons.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

reductionist Ripperology

Discarding the whole grape story for lack of positive evidence or reliable witness testimony is fine; but you have to apply it Le Grand too, since there is no evidence at all for his presence in the yard when Stride was killed, and Schwartz's story would need to be 100% reliable, with his description of Pipeman demonstrably matching Le Grand beyond reasonable doubt. (The fact that the pipe turned into a knife does more harm than good in this regard. No grapes, no knife.) And there is still no evidence that the killer was Pipeman, waiting for the chance to kill Stride for unknown reasons. It's all speculation, based on precious little.
If the grapes have to go from that yard, so does Le Grand, for almost identical reasons.

I really hope you're joking, Caz? You're comparing grapes to a suspect, as in an object to a person?!? For the grapes we have reliable evidence from both the police and the medics that they didn't exist. For the suspect in question, we have both his physical description at the murder scene just minutes prior to the murder and his suspicious behavior after the murder.
Incidentally, I have an explanation on why his physical description was mentioned in Schwartz' testimony even if Schwartz' testimony was a complete fabrication. This will be presented in my article.


And by the by, I've been thinking of your use of the term "minimalist" Ripperology in the meaning of "selective", and I think that the term "reductionist" Ripperology would be most fitted to describe what you meant.

[caz]

Hi Maria,

Not joking at all. Just as no grapes were found at the scene (and the murderer presumably saw none either), Le Grand can't be placed at the scene. Nor reliably in the vicinity of Berner St.

But I certainly look forward to learning how Schwartz can place him in Berner St for you, especially if Pipeman could have been 'a complete fabrication' along with the rest of his tale.

What was it about Schwartz's (translated and possibly fabricated) description that would mark out the man with the pipe as Le Grand and nobody else? Pipeman's knife certainly appears to have been a fabrication, either by Schwartz or the press for added oomph, or due to poor translating, and that's the one thing that has to be there, in the killer's hand, when Stride's throat is cut. A pity that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garza]

Good work guys, very interesting stuff!

Sort confirms more to me about Schwartz's testimony from what I felt at the very start, it was nonsense - but strife for more evidence we must!

Good to be back after hiatus! Hope you guys have had a great 2012 thus far.

[lynn cates]

welcome back

Hello Garza. Thanks. Welcome back. Hope you stay awhile.

Yes, Israel's story was rather convenient.

Cheers.
LC