Who was the best witness to have seen Jack the Ripper?

[pinkmoon]

Hello Dave,

Actually you do have a point. I did find an instance in The Workhouse Encyclopedia where the Times published an anecdote concerning the workhouse which they were later unable to back up. The book sounds interesting, I shall definitely buy it sometime in the future. Several books ordered for Christmas have not yet arrived, mainly workhouse (have moved on from the socialists/anarchists/trade unions for the moment), but also Whittington Egan, so it will have to wait for a bit.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

Hi,I'm currently reading Whittington Egan at the moment and it is excellent .

[curious4]

Growl subsided to a purr :-)

Hello Dave,

Actually you do have a point. I did find an instance in The Workhouse Encyclopedia where the Times published an anecdote concerning the workhouse which they were later unable to back up. The book sounds interesting, I shall definitely buy it sometime in the future. Several books ordered for Christmas have not yet arrived, mainly workhouse (have moved on from the socialists/anarchists/trade unions for the moment), but also Whittington Egan, so it will have to wait for a bit.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Gwyneth

P.S. What makes you think I don't compare sources?

I didn't actually say that, nor would I have dreamed of suggesting it!



All the best

Dave

[curious4]

The Times

Hallo Dave,

Thanks for the tip. Nothing is infallible.

Best wishes,

Gwyneth/C4

P.S. What makes you think I don't compare sources?

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Gwynneth

The Times, my dear, is not merely a newspaper, but an institution. I have had difficulty before in trying to explain this to our American cousins. So, as far as credibility is concerned, I personally would choose their version over that of the gutter press, unless there was a very good reason for doing otherwise.

Whilst I'd be the first to acknowledge your valuation of The Times down the years it does seem (to me at least) that sometimes the old Thunderer wasn't at it's best during the autumn of 1888.

Personally I've found great value in doing as Tom suggests and comparing a variety of sources. In this respect, I've often found the Daily Telegraph to be helpful, and in this respect I'd have no hesitation in recommending "The News from Whitechapel" by Messrs Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, which prints the Telegraph's stories verbatim, and then provides an interesting and thoughtful commentary where necessary.

All the best

Dave

[curious4]

Research

Hi Curious4, I believe the Sourcebook quotes from The Times. You should look at some other press sources. While there may have been blood on the back of the hands, there was certainly blood on the wrists, which is what we're talking about here. And you seem to be thrown off by the word 'clot'. All blood clots. If you cut your hand and a little blood comes out, it will shortly clot. So it stands to reason that the oblong marks of blood would have clotted by the time the doctor got there. The only way that blood could have gotten onto her hand and wrist is by someone transferring it there from her neck wound. The person who did that was Edward Johnston. This is pretty elementary stuff, but some folks prefer to struggle with it. Not sure why.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom W,

You are of course quite right in that it is important to consult all possible sources and I am sure that the majority of posters on this board access anything available to them and not just from the internet. However, the trick is to judge which of them is the most credible. The Times, my dear, is not merely a newspaper, but an institution. I have had difficulty before in trying to explain this to our American cousins. So, as far as credibility is concerned, I personally would choose their version over that of the gutter press, unless there was a very good reason for doing otherwise.

I am sure that you, as a good researcher, are aware of the danger of trying to make the facts fit the theory rather than otherwise.

Clots are out of place on this thread in both senses of the word, but I will say that it takes more than a smear of blood to form a clot and that, outside of the body, it takes longer to form (15 minutes is a time I have seen quoted), which would fit into the timeline if Liz had tried to pull away the scarf as she was being choked, as was suggested at the time, or come to just long enough to put her hand to her throat before fainting again from loss of blood. Either of these actions would result in quite a lot of blood being deposited on her hand.

Best wishes,
C4

[Michael W Richards]

I only create doubt and debate where I feel there is cause for them, Tom. Your thanks are nonetheless noted and reciprocated, for the same reasons

I wasnt sure how to respond to that comment Sam, hopefully it would have been something like the above.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Creating doubt and debate where there should be none is not particularly helpful. In any event, we already have Mike Richards and Sam Flynn for that.

I only create doubt and debate where I feel there is cause for them, Tom. Your thanks are nonetheless noted and reciprocated, for the same reasons

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

I have no intention of getting into an endless circular debate with you. I've laid out the facts, so there it is. Johnston did not feel her neck and then feel both wrists. For starters, even a medical man in training doesn't feel for a pulse THREE TIMES, and secondly, and most obviously, he couldn't reach her left wrist at that time because she was laying on her left arm.

As for his admission, he likely wasn't aware he had done it. Also, he and Blackwell were not entirely honest at the inquest, in case you hadn't noticed.

Bottom line is that it was Johnston who transferred blood to Stride's wrist. Creating doubt and debate where there should be none is not particularly helpful. In any event, we already have Mike Richards and Sam Flynn for that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

It is easier to see Johnston as the least likely to transfer the blood for several reason's.

First, Johnston felt both hands to see if they were cold, but blood was only deposited on the right hand. If Johnston was the cause we would expect blood marks on both hands.

Second, Johnston was specifically asked about the blood marks, to which he claimed to notice none. If he had blood on his own hands at any point, just like you or I, he would have noticed his own bloodied hand.

Third, PC Lamb only touched one hand, not both, and was not asked about the blood marks as he gave evidence on a different day. The issue had not arisen. We are not told, nor did anyone ask, if his hands were bloody.


Stride's right hand was smeared with blood both inside and out, consistent with it being caused by someone who was taking the pulse (which is the correct way to grasp the hand), not someone who was touching the outside of the hand to see if it was warm.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom W,

I quote (from Jack the Ripper Sourcebook) Dr Phillips: "The right arm was over the belly. The back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood", (inquest testimony) and further on, "Coroner: "Have you formed any opinion how the right hand of the deceased was covered in blood?" Witness: "No; that is a mystery."

I know that the transference theory has been put forward as an explanation, but a) can clots be transferred in this way? and b) would enough blood have been transferred in this way to form clots?

Best wishes,
C4

Hi Curious4, I believe the Sourcebook quotes from The Times. You should look at some other press sources. While there may have been blood on the back of the hands, there was certainly blood on the wrists, which is what we're talking about here. And you seem to be thrown off by the word 'clot'. All blood clots. If you cut your hand and a little blood comes out, it will shortly clot. So it stands to reason that the oblong marks of blood would have clotted by the time the doctor got there. The only way that blood could have gotten onto her hand and wrist is by someone transferring it there from her neck wound. The person who did that was Edward Johnston. This is pretty elementary stuff, but some folks prefer to struggle with it. Not sure why.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Your guesswork is as good as anyone's Tom.

I don't guess. I research.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

The blood clots were on the front lower part of the hand and were transferred there by Edward Johnston, who first loosened her collar and felt the neck for a pulse, then picked up the wrist. The blood was not noticed by anyone, such as Edward Spooner, prior to Johnston's arrival, but were noticed after Johnston came into contact with the body.

Stride's hand was clenched, so in the darkness of the yard, the 'oblong clots' could have appeared as something she was gripping in her hand, such as grapes.

What is fact is that Matthew Packer did not sell grapes to Liz Stride and she did not consume any grapes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Bold... and in my opinion also, the correct view.

The blood flow was contained in a manner of speaking by the gutter, which also would wash rain water through...I would imagine that fluids just look like fluids in near darkness, until of course a clot is discovered.

Like the bold position though...fully agree.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Or, at least, he heard the side-effects of what the Ripper was doing. I believe Cadosch only heard Annie's voice, if such it was, and even then only a syllable.

My apologies for the delay in responding Sam, Holidays and all that....which by the way,... A Belated Merry and Happy to you. Im glad to see that we may put any disagreements away with my old nomme de plume (?sp) and resume some discussions.

Based on your remarks you also believe that we can exclude Mrs Long from this list?

Cheers SF

[curious4]

Cachous

Hi Gwyneth.


I've spent many hours trying to find out what these cachous (alt. sweetmeats), looked like in the late 19th century.
I'm inclined to think they were not as small as those 'imps' we often talk about as the doctors were able to see these cachous in the dark and in the mud. Those 'imps' were not much larger than the head of a match, not likely to be noticeable at night in the dark & wet mud.

However, some cachous/sweetmeats were dried, fruit or berries, coated in sugar. I have had to wonder if these reports of 'grapes' were nothing more than the cachous we already know about.
Therefore, I suspect, she held the packet of cachous in her left hand, but a few loose in her right hand (seen by Diemschutz & Kozebrodski, thought to be grapes).

When PC Lamb felt for her pulse he dislodged the loose cachous which fell into the gutter, as mentioned by Dr Phillips.

The existence of 'grapes' has long been a source of controversy, but for two independent witnesses to see them suggests to me that there must be a simple solution.

The only contribution I see from Packer is that he claimed to see Stride with a man about 12:30, at the same time & location as PC Smith.

Hello Jon,

I had an aunt who relied on violet cachous (apparently) and seem to remember a kind of tablet, vaguely oblong and about the size of a fingernail (female). They were coloured purple. Not sure if these were the same kind Liz would have had, but only relatively recently has the idea of "new, improved" taken over from "traditional", so it could well have been.

So, yes, you could be right!

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4