Schwartz v. Lawende

[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?

[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]

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.

[DJA]

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

Two negatives.....

Sorta like GSG

Cheers!

[DJA]

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?

Yep!

[John G]

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.

Hi Jon,

The Evening News refers to a Mrs Rosenfield and Miss Harstein being the source of the grape stalk story. Referring to their account the article states, "The next evidence gleaned by the detectives was that of a Mrs Rosenfield and her sister, Miss Eva Harstein."

Presumably the "detectives" referred to are Grand and Batchelor, referred to earlier in the article.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

The Evening News refers to a Mrs Rosenfield and Miss Harstein being the source of the grape stalk story. Referring to their account the article states, "The next evidence gleaned by the detectives was that of a Mrs Rosenfield and her sister, Miss Eva Harstein."

Presumably the "detectives" referred to are Grand and Batchelor, referred to earlier in the article.

Quite true John, I think Tom credit's Le-Grand because in Tom's view Le-Grand either planted the grape stalk, or coerced the women into telling their story.
I know Tom suggested Le-Grand was connected to the newspaper somehow, it's just a while since we discussed it I'm not altogether clear on Tom's theory on this anymore.
I just didn't buy it at the time, and still don't.

Whether Packer sold them any grapes that night is not important, the important question is, did Packer see Stride with a man at that location between 12:00-12:30, or 11:00-11:30?

And, if the women he saw was Stride, then we know she was at the Bricklayers Arms at 11:00, so we can answer the above question with reasonable certainty.

[DJA]

if the women he saw was Stride, then we know she was at the Bricklayers Arms at 11:00

Honestly.

Sincerely doubt that.

[Wickerman]

Honestly.

Sincerely doubt that.

Everyone is entitled to their doubts, though unless it can be shown she was somewhere else at the time, or the witnesses made it up, then such doubts don't amount to anything.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

There's medical evidence that if she did eat grapes she managed to not swallow a single seed or skin, which is very difficult to do. If she did eat grapes it was not in front of Packer who stated on the morning after the murder that he'd seen no couples about prior to closing his shop at 11:30pm.

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.

Swanson did not include the finding of a grape stalk in is report. He gave a capsulation of Packer's statement, which included Packer's reference to the grape stalk. The finding of the grape stalk was not witnessed by the police, so there's a big question mark as to if it even happened. I do not imagine Le Grand actually dug around in wet piles of bloody trash. But we're talking about a very public club with dozens of people coming in and out and strangers slipping in to use the toilets, so the finding of a grape stalk there on any day of the week would not be suspicious.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Everyone is entitled to their doubts, though unless it can be shown she was somewhere else at the time, or the witnesses made it up, then such doubts don't amount to anything.

Three men, and not two, identified Stride as the woman they saw at the Bricklayer's Arms. So either all three were lying, all three were mistaken, or all three were telling the truth. I see no reason to suppose they were lying or mistaken. Unlike Tabram and Chapman, Stride did not have a common face.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

Checked my notes and found the quote I was trying to remember,

"Several policemen on duty in the district declare that they have seen the deceased about the locality, and it is believed that she belonged to the "unfortunate" class."

Morning Addy. Oct 01

Re: Packer

What doesn't look good for him, is the fact he only brought up the "grape" story after grapes were mentioned in various the papers. And, of course, despite Bruce Robinson's claims to the contray, Packer stood to financially gain from inserting himself into the story, by the increased trade his publicity brought. None of it compelling evidence but, all serves to cast a suspicious eye on Mr P.

[Wickerman]

There's medical evidence that if she did eat grapes she managed to not swallow a single seed or skin, which is very difficult to do.

It is very common to spit out the skins and the seeds. Though a woman not so disposed to spitting in public will often take a more lady-like approach and wipe them from her lips with a handkerchief, hence the fruit stains on her handkerchief investigated by Dr. Phillips.

Swanson did not include the finding of a grape stalk in is report. He gave a capsulation of Packer's statement, which included Packer's reference to the grape stalk.

Packer makes no mention of a grape stalk in his statement, and Swanson does not attribute the story of the finding to Packer.

The finding of the grape stalk was not witnessed by the police, so there's a big question mark as to if it even happened.

I don't recall this incident being questioned by police, or anyone else in authority.

I do not imagine Le Grand actually dug around in wet piles of bloody trash. But we're talking about a very public club with dozens of people coming in and out and strangers slipping in to use the toilets, so the finding of a grape stalk there on any day of the week would not be suspicious.

Absolutely, anyone could have dropped it, and as "anyone" includes both Stride and her client, then by what reasoning can we dismiss either of them as the source?

[Wickerman]

Re: Packer

What doesn't look good for him, is the fact he only brought up the "grape" story after grapes were mentioned in various the papers. And, of course, despite Bruce Robinson's claims to the contray, Packer stood to financially gain from inserting himself into the story, by the increased trade his publicity brought. None of it compelling evidence but, all serves to cast a suspicious eye on Mr P.

Right at the outset Packer denied seeing anyone or anything, yes agreed.
Public relations with the police were not always cordial. Packer could just as easily have been trying brush the police off, not wanting to have anything to do with the incident.
He wouldn't be the first witness to tell the police, "I saw nothing, I heard nothing, go away copper!"

What is of material interest is the fact that PC Smith saw Stride with a man at the same location, and at the same time, so when Packer, three days later, told the press that he did see a man & a woman at that location just before he closed his shop at 12:30 then we are faced with the question, was he making it up, or has he decided to tell the truth?

The difference between the police making enquiries and the press making enquiries is, the press can pay him for his statement, perhaps that was the deciding factor?

On the other hand, if Packer had read PC Smith's statement in the press and decided to now claim he saw the couple too, then why wouldn't he describe the man exactly the same way that PC Smith described him?
It makes no sense to suddenly lie, and jump on the bandwagon, to then provide a different description of the man he is claiming to have seen.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

Checked my notes and found the quote I was trying to remember,

"Several policemen on duty in the district declare that they have seen the deceased about the locality, and it is believed that she belonged to the "unfortunate" class."

Morning Addy. Oct 01

Re: Packer

What doesn't look good for him, is the fact he only brought up the "grape" story after grapes were mentioned in various the papers. And, of course, despite Bruce Robinson's claims to the contray, Packer stood to financially gain from inserting himself into the story, by the increased trade his publicity brought. None of it compelling evidence but, all serves to cast a suspicious eye on Mr P.

He was paid for his information by Le Grand, and told the press that the police had promised to pay him as well but reneged and he was upset about it. Thanks for the tip about Stride being known to coppers in the area. I'll have to check that out. I've personally never doubted she was a known prostitute, so haven't looked terribly close at that. But it's good to have references such as that at our disposable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott