Schwartz v. Lawende

[DJA]

I think you're asking me to prove a negative!

Two negatives.....

Sorta like GSG

Cheers!

[Wickerman]

Well Tom, I can't say whether Stride did or didn't eat grapes, what I do say is there is no evidence that shows she didn't, and that circumstantial evidence suggests she could have.

As for Le-Grand being the sole source of the grape stalk story, I don't know.
I wasn't aware you had proven that Le-Grand was the writer of the Evening News story, and Swanson did include the finding of this grape stalk in his 19th Oct. report, so it must have existed.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well Tom, there's nothing "ill-informed" about the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief, nor the finding of the grape stalk in Dutfield's Yard.
And Dr. Phillips was looking for grape skin & pips in the stomach, not the jelly-like fruit of a grape, which is not going to survive 38 hours anyway, and likely not even be recognisable among the partly digested cheese & potato in her stomach if it did.

So it is not true to say there is evidence against her eating grapes.

The reason Packer's story was rejected was due to him changing the times, not that the story he told didn't happen.

The police did not dismiss Packer due to him originally telling Sergt. White that he saw nothing & nobody, or they wouldn't have entertained him for an interview later, which they clearly did as evidenced by the summary that was made of his police statement by A.C.B.
Whether this statement was the result of Grand & Batchelor bringing him in, or Scotland Yard doing so at some point later is unknown.

The police could not use a story when the witness was not be certain that what he saw happened between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30. This uncertainty makes the statement unusable, hence Swanson's dismissing of Packer as unreliable.
Not, that the story didn't happen.

I think I might have to bow out of this thread for the time being, since the discussion I'm reading seems to come from 1988 or so, with such nonsense as Warren interviewing Packer and Stride having eaten grapes. She had not consumed grapes nor were there pits found. You say there's nothing "ill-informed" about a grape stalk being found, but this presumes Le Grand (the sole source for this), a known conman and criminal, to have been a more trustworthy and dependable source than the police. When Anderson comments about "unprincipled persons" he's counting Packer and Le Grand among those numbers. Any writer/researcher who relies on Packer's credibility is doing so at the expense of his own.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Why would private detectives be taking Packer to see Warren?

Like asking why did the chicken cross the road.

The answer is obvious.

ACB was mistaken for CW. ROFL.

How are the Gruffs?

And I assume you believe Warren must have copied Bruce's handwriting, what a cad, ....this requires a stiff letter to the Times!!!

Does this theory of yours get any sillier?

[John G]

Why would private detectives be taking Packer to see Warren?

Like asking why did the chicken cross the road.

The answer is obvious.

ACB was mistaken for CW. ROFL.

How are the Gruffs?

Well, they might have offered to take him to see Queen Victoria, but that's no reason to believe that they would have been granted an audience! And it certainly wouldn't amount to evidence that any meeting took place.

[John G]

Source

I think you're asking me to prove a negative!

[DJA]

Yes John, in Stewart's first English edition of the Ultimate, on pages 130/131 we read the summary written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce. The signature "ACB" was originally mistaken for "CW", or so I was informed by Stewart.

This Warren/Packer association is a rather dated scenario from someone who is not up to date with research.

Why would private detectives be taking Packer to see Warren?

Like asking why did the chicken cross the road.

The answer is obvious.

ACB was mistaken for CW. ROFL.

How are the Gruffs?

[DJA]

Well Tom, there's nothing "ill-informed" about the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief, nor the finding of the grape stalk in Dutfield's Yard.
And Dr. Phillips was looking for grape skin & pips in the stomach, not the jelly-like fruit of a grape, which is not going to survive 38 hours anyway, and likely not even be recognisable among the partly digested cheese & potato in her stomach if it did.

So it is not true to say there is evidence against her eating grapes.

The reason Packer's story was rejected was due to him changing the times, not that the story he told didn't happen.

+1

Some of the "heritage grapes" had thick skins and decent seeds.

Used to peel mine as a kid and spit out the pips.

Three growers/wineries up here.
Quite enjoy pruning in the Winter.

[DJA]

Yes, I think this is a misinterpretation of the available facts. Batchelor and Grand did, indeed, take Packer to Scotland Yard with the intention of seeing Charles Warren, but there is no record of any such meeting having taken place: in fact, I would be very much surprised if it did; I doubt Grand and Batchelor had that much influence!

Nonetheless, whilst at Scotland Yard Packer did make a statement, and it is a record of this statement that still exists, i.e. not a record of Packer having met Warren.

Source

[Wickerman]

... Most of the stuff that gets 'argued' is ill-informed and sometimes nonsensical. I'm not referring any people or person on this thread, just in general. For instance, it gets argued that Packer sold Stride and a man grapes in spite of the wealth of evidence proving that untrue, including Packer's own denial to the police.

Well Tom, there's nothing "ill-informed" about the fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief, nor the finding of the grape stalk in Dutfield's Yard.
And Dr. Phillips was looking for grape skin & pips in the stomach, not the jelly-like fruit of a grape, which is not going to survive 38 hours anyway, and likely not even be recognisable among the partly digested cheese & potato in her stomach if it did.

So it is not true to say there is evidence against her eating grapes.

The reason Packer's story was rejected was due to him changing the times, not that the story he told didn't happen.

The police did not dismiss Packer due to him originally telling Sergt. White that he saw nothing & nobody, or they wouldn't have entertained him for an interview later, which they clearly did as evidenced by the summary that was made of his police statement by A.C.B.
Whether this statement was the result of Grand & Batchelor bringing him in, or Scotland Yard doing so at some point later is unknown.

The police could not use a story when the witness was not be certain that what he saw happened between 11:00-11:30, or 12:00-12:30. This uncertainty makes the statement unusable, hence Swanson's dismissing of Packer as unreliable.
Not, that the story didn't happen.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I think this is a misinterpretation of the available facts. Batchelor and Grand did, indeed, take Packer to Scotland Yard with the intention of seeing Charles Warren, but there is no record of any such meeting having taken place: in fact, I would be very much surprised if it did; I doubt Grand and Batchelor had that much influence!

Nonetheless, whilst at Scotland Yard Packer did make a statement, and it is a record of this statement that still exists, i.e. not a record of Packer having met Warren.

Yes John, in Stewart's first English edition of the Ultimate, on pages 130/131 we read the summary written by Alexander Carmichael Bruce. The signature "ACB" was originally mistaken for "CW", or so I was informed by Stewart.

This Warren/Packer association is a rather dated scenario from someone who is not up to date with research.

[John G]

There's this myth that Stride 'made herself up' that has been going around for years. I believe this stems from the fact that many of the victims were essentially homeless and wore/carried all their belongings with them. But Stride had lived in her own place with Kidney for years and possessed good clothes. That's why the press says she doesn't look like she's from the area and there was speculation that she'd been lured there from the west side. But there's no suggestion that she looked any better that day than on any given weekend. That's just the clothes she had. What I thought was most interesting is that even though she rarely lived in the lodging house, she was able to waltz in and get paid by the deputy to do cleaning. This must have stirred the ire of longer term residences who were not so cozy with the deputy. But this idea that she got gussied up with a date for a secret boyfriend falls flat when it becomes clear she was seen with different men that evening.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

According to Best, the woman he saw at the Bricklayers' Arms with a suspect, and who he subsequently identified as Stride (or at least he was almost certain that she was the victim), was "poorly dressed."

[John G]

Sumfin' called casebook.

Search.....warren packer interview....interview may be superfluous.

Chris authored a page.

Yes, I think this is a misinterpretation of the available facts. Batchelor and Grand did, indeed, take Packer to Scotland Yard with the intention of seeing Charles Warren, but there is no record of any such meeting having taken place: in fact, I would be very much surprised if it did; I doubt Grand and Batchelor had that much influence!

Nonetheless, whilst at Scotland Yard Packer did make a statement, and it is a record of this statement that still exists, i.e. not a record of Packer having met Warren.

[DJA]

Can you cite a reference?

Sumfin' called casebook.

Search.....warren packer interview....interview may be superfluous.

Chris authored a page.

[DJA]

But how could Stride afford to employ a bodyguard?

With Eddowes locked up and no sign of the blackmailee,she couldn't.

Hence the argument.

Once BS man left, Stride was left by herself.