Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017)

[Wickerman]

So, it is reasonable to suggest that Smith didn't see a parcel done up in newspaper at all - it was actually a stack of Arbeter Fraint's - but neither Packer nor Marshall could possibly have forgotten what type of hat a man was wearing, when witnessed on a dark street a few nights ago?...

I give Packer a pass on that because he saw the couple through his serving window. They look like sash-type windows, the bottom half pulls up, so from inside all Packer will see of the man was his chest. As the couple walk up to the club he looses sight of them, then they come into view as they cross the street to stand opposite the club. Which means he only sees the man from a distance.

As for PC Smith, we don't know which side of Berner street he walked up, the club side or Board school side. When he noticed Stride was he on the same side as them, or the opposite side?

[Scott Nelson]

As for PC Smith, we don't know which side of Berner street he walked up, the club side or Board school side. When he noticed Stride was he on the same side as them, or the opposite side?

Smith was on the Board School side of the street when he passed Stride and "parcel" man on the same side.

[Wickerman]

Smith was on the Board School side of the street when he passed Stride and "parcel" man on the same side.

What I'm looking for Scott, is something that actually says which side he was on.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I give Packer a pass on that because he saw the couple through his serving window. They look like sash-type windows, the bottom half pulls up, so from inside all Packer will see of the man was his chest. As the couple walk up to the club he looses sight of them, then they come into view as they cross the street to stand opposite the club. Which means he only sees the man from a distance.

While I'm dubious about the Evening News story, I think those who dismiss Packer should have something to say about Diemschitz and Kozebrodski's reference to grapes in her hand, and Phillips reference to the fruit-stained handkerchief.

As for PC Smith, we don't know which side of Berner street he walked up, the club side or Board school side. When he noticed Stride was he on the same side as them, or the opposite side?

Coroner, Smith: Was she on the pavement? - Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

If Smith was on the board school side, would he have walked around them, or would they have got out of his way, possibly acknowledging the constable when they did?

Smith: I did not see much of the face of the man except that he had no whiskers.

Perhaps if they had moved to let the PC continue walking on the pavement, Smith would have got a good look at the man. So, I would tentatively suggest that Smith was on the club side. This might be supported by the hearing of the 'measured, heavy tramp'. With the flowers on the right side of her chest, it would seem that she was facing south (toward Fairclough St), and he north, with the newspaper parcel in his left hand. For the flowers to be clearly visible, just maybe the two were not standing particularly close together, in contrast to Eddowes/woman and man at Church Passage.

A problem with this scenario, is that Smith seems to have had a fairly good view of the man's coat. In the Daily Telegraph, "The coat was a cutaway coat". How could he determine the type of coat if his best view of the man is side-on? Picture Stride with her back to the board school wall, and he is facing north but looking at her, with parcel in left hand. Smith walks south on the club side, and can clearly see the flowers and parcel, enough of the man' coat to see the style, but the man's face is partially obscured. So, while talking together, the two are able to maintain a good view of the street, which could be significant.

[Wickerman]

While I'm dubious about the Evening News story, I think those who dismiss Packer should have something to say about Diemschitz and Kozebrodski's reference to grapes in her hand, and Phillips reference to the fruit-stained handkerchief.

The last opinion that was offered to explain the grapes was that the witnesses were mistaken they had not seen grapes at all. It was proposed what they saw in the dark was blood clots. There were even clots on the back of her right hand, but they said those were the grapes Diemschutz & Kozebrodski had seen.

Dr. Phillips was sure there was no evidence in her stomach of her eating grapes, no pips or skins. A lot of people spit the pips out, and the skins too, which could explain why none were found in the stomach. The watery grape flesh would have been dissolved by stomach acids, the post-mortem only began about 38 hrs after the murder, the digestive system does not stop at death.

Posters seem to prefer to dismiss Packer then they don't don't have to deal with these minutae. Swanson says he couldn't use Packer as a witness because he changed his story, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean he made up his story.
In fact, it speaks to the opposite. If he had made it up he would only have that made up version, so why would he be confused?

Coroner, Smith: Was she on the pavement? - Yes, a few yards up Berner-street on the opposite side to where she was found.

If Smith was on the board school side, would he have walked around them, or would they have got out of his way, possibly acknowledging the constable when they did?

Smith: I did not see much of the face of the man except that he had no whiskers.

Perhaps if they had moved to let the PC continue walking on the pavement, Smith would have got a good look at the man. So, I would tentatively suggest that Smith was on the club side. This might be supported by the hearing of the 'measured, heavy tramp'.

I also think the PC had to have been walking up the club side for Mortimer to hear his footsteps from inside her house. He must have passed her door on the footpath. She wouldn't have heard him if he was on the other side.
That being the case, and Stride was on the other side, then that calls into question any details about the couple he gave in his statement. More especially the idea that the parcel was as big as 18 inches, he has overestimated it's size due to him being so far away. The flower had white petals so he might see them at night, but nothing about the man's face.

A problem with this scenario, is that Smith seems to have had a fairly good view of the man's coat. In the Daily Telegraph, "The coat was a cutaway coat". How could he determine the type of coat if his best view of the man is side-on?

A Cutaway coat is cut away from the waist down, like a swallows wings. It is also called a Morning Coat.

Stride & her man could have been stood anywhere on the footpath. We don't know which way they faced, perhaps they both faced the club listening to the signing while PC Smith walked up past the gateway?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The last opinion that was offered to explain the grapes was that the witnesses were mistaken they had not seen grapes at all. It was proposed what they saw in the dark was blood clots. There were even clots on the back of her right hand, but they said those were the grapes Diemschutz & Kozebrodski had seen.

The grapes were supposedly witnessed when the hands were unclenched. The blood clots theory doesn't work for me at all.

Dr. Phillips was sure there was no evidence in her stomach of her eating grapes, no pips or skins. A lot of people spit the pips out, and the skins too, which could explain why none were found in the stomach. The watery grape flesh would have been dissolved by stomach acids, the post-mortem only began about 38 hrs after the murder, the digestive system does not stop at death.

That's fine as far as it goes, but the fruit stains require getting the grapes into the handkerchief, or supposing they were already there. Now someone casually eating grapes out of a handkerchief is conceivable, albeit a bit odd, but why the stains? The clenched hands might result in some squashed grapes, and the cachous in the other hand plus some scattered around, hint at some sort of struggle and perhaps an attempted theft. The idea being that Stride was grabbed and pulled or pushed, just before exiting the yard with her hands full. Somewhat similar to "[he] saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street". I could then explain the standing in the gateway as Stride pausing, having spotted the approaching man (possibly Morris Eagle).

Posters seem to prefer to dismiss Packer then they don't don't have to deal with these minutae. Swanson says he couldn't use Packer as a witness because he changed his story, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean he made up his story.
In fact, it speaks to the opposite. If he had made it up he would only have that made up version, so why would he be confused?

One of the minutiae is why Diemschitz told the press he saw grapes, but not the coroner. The purchase of grapes from Packer doesn't explain this, but the theft of grapes from a costermonger barrow might.

I also think the PC had to have been walking up the club side for Mortimer to hear his footsteps from inside her house. He must have passed her door on the footpath. She wouldn't have heard him if he was on the other side.
That being the case, and Stride was on the other side, then that calls into question any details about the couple he gave in his statement. More especially the idea that the parcel was as big as 18 inches, he has overestimated it's size due to him being so far away. The flower had white petals so he might see them at night, but nothing about the man's face.

Whereas if the parcel is just a carry bag, it could have been as large or even larger than Smith suggested, without being a problem.

Stride & her man could have been stood anywhere on the footpath. We don't know which way they faced, perhaps they both faced the club listening to the signing while PC Smith walked up past the gateway?

Of course, we can only guess at their orientation to each other. My guess is that they would have been facing each other to some degree, and not standing side by side. I think Smith would have mentioned if they had been side by side and facing the club.

[Wickerman]

The grapes were supposedly witnessed when the hands were unclenched. The blood clots theory doesn't work for me at all.

Her body was close to the wall, in a crouching position with her knees raised up such, that no-one was able to stand in front of her. All those who gathered around were standing behind her. If there was anything in her right hand, which was on her chest, it must have fallen out of her fingers and down to the ground in the darkness between her body and the wall, out of sight.
We might only be talking about 2 or 3 grapes in her hand, not the full half-pound, so with the grapes being black they must have been trodden into the mud & blood in the darkness, so by the time the body was lifted onto the ambulance, there was nothing recognisable.

..... but the fruit stains require getting the grapes into the handkerchief, or supposing they were already there. Now someone casually eating grapes out of a handkerchief is conceivable, albeit a bit odd, but why the stains?

I suggest when you eat a grape if you're intention is to remove the pips & detach the skin, you may choose to hold the grape with your fingers, in a handkerchief so as to prevent your fingers getting wet, or at least that's how a female might do it.

One of the minutiae is why Diemschitz told the press he saw grapes, but not the coroner. The purchase of grapes from Packer doesn't explain this, but the theft of grapes from a costermonger barrow might.

It has been suggested that Diemschutz told the court she had no grapes in her hand, yet what he actually said was - he 'did not notice the position of her hands', after being asked 'did you notice her hands?' - which is not the same thing.

I think it is inconclusive, but whether she had any grapes in her hand or not is immaterial to the case. What matters is the man she was with when she bought the grapes - the police did not take issue with that part of Packer's story.
In fact the Parcel-man was identified by police as a prime suspect.

It would be remarkable if Stride had been with two different men at the same place (outside Dutfields Yard), at the same time (12:30-35), and both carried newspaper parcels.
Obviously, to me, they have to be the same man.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Her body was close to the wall, in a crouching position with her knees raised up such, that no-one was able to stand in front of her. All those who gathered around were standing behind her. If there was anything in her right hand, which was on her chest, it must have fallen out of her fingers and down to the ground in the darkness between her body and the wall, out of sight.
We might only be talking about 2 or 3 grapes in her hand, not the full half-pound, so with the grapes being black they must have been trodden into the mud & blood in the darkness, so by the time the body was lifted onto the ambulance, there was nothing recognisable.

Given her position relative to the wall, I'm not comfortable with the idea that grapes would have been clumsily destroyed by boots, or even that they would have been lost from sight had they been trodden on. How thick was the mud? Were the stones when dry, just a bit dirty, or was there a layer of dirt over them that turned to thick mud when it rained?

I suggest when you eat a grape if you're intention is to remove the pips & detach the skin, you may choose to hold the grape with your fingers, in a handkerchief so as to prevent your fingers getting wet, or at least that's how a female might do it.

I don't recall ever seeing a female eat grapes in that manner.

It has been suggested that Diemschutz told the court she had no grapes in her hand, yet what he actually said was - he 'did not notice the position of her hands', after being asked 'did you notice her hands?' - which is not the same thing.

I think it is inconclusive, but whether she had any grapes in her hand or not is immaterial to the case. What matters is the man she was with when she bought the grapes - the police did not take issue with that part of Packer's story.
In fact the Parcel-man was identified by police as a prime suspect.

When Diemschitz witnessed the unclenching of the hands, how could he not notice what position they were in?

That Stride may have had something in both hands when killed, is an important clue. What was she doing in that very dark spot with her hands full? Was she being a prostitute, a thief, or something else?

It would be remarkable if Stride had been with two different men at the same place (outside Dutfields Yard), at the same time (12:30-35), and both carried newspaper parcels.
Obviously, to me, they have to be the same man.

Why are you so confident that Packer sold grapes at that time? Was it raining then?

[Scott Nelson]

What I'm looking for Scott, is something that actually says which side he was on.

Gavin Bromley references Smith's beat and estimated times at specific points in Smith's Beat, Ripperologist no. 70, August 2006, and in a follow-up addendum in no. 71. Bromley's analysis shows that Stride and the man were passed on the same side of the street (Board School side) by Smith as he walked north towards Commercial Street between 12:40 and 12:48 am.

[Wickerman]

Given her position relative to the wall, I'm not comfortable with the idea that grapes would have been clumsily destroyed by boots, or even that they would have been lost from sight had they been trodden on. How thick was the mud? Were the stones when dry, just a bit dirty, or was there a layer of dirt over them that turned to thick mud when it rained?

Some of your questions we cannot answer, but when I said they might have been trodden, was when the body was lifted on to the ambulance. They would likely roll her on to her back and gather around her to lift using each limb. Treading on the grapes in the dark.
The yard was washed down about 5:00 am, maybe some were just washed away, it still is not light at 5:00 am. Not that the constable washing the yard would be aware of the importance of seeing any grapes.

I don't recall ever seeing a female eat grapes in that manner.

Me neither, who walks about eating grapes these days?
Don't most people eat them at home?
It's the vision of my mother sitting by the TV eating grapes, with a tissue for the pips & skins, that sticks in my mind.
I was only a kid at the time, but I can't imagine what she was doing was unique. It was just lady-like I guess, as opposed to spitting them out.

When Diemschitz witnessed the unclenching of the hands, how could he not notice what position they were in?

I don't think he did, his story was that he found the body, then left the yard running to find a policeman. When he got back the police arrived within minutes, then the doctors. He says he lost interest at that moment.
The statement he gave to the press (1st Oct.) does say he saw grapes in her hand, but I don't see where he says the doctor unclenched the hand?
I can't find where you say he watched the doctor unclench the hands.

That Stride may have had something in both hands when killed, is an important clue. What was she doing in that very dark spot with her hands full? Was she being a prostitute, a thief, or something else?

This does seem to be questionable, her holding something in both hands.

Why are you so confident that Packer sold grapes at that time? Was it raining then?

Diemschutz does say her clothes were wet, so it must have been raining at some point.
Why do I believe Packer sold her grapes?

I would suggest it all depends on how you approach the case. If you treat it like a video game, then you can make any witness into a liar to win the game.
If you look at the case from the point of view of the police, then all witness statements are given & taken in good faith.
It's not that people don't lie, it's just too easy for some theorists to avoid a troublesome witness, or failing theory, by branding the witness a liar.
Problem solved.
I take all witness statements as given in good faith, this is the evidence we have to work with.
You have to discipline yourself to stick with the evidence and not give in to dismissing something that causes you problems.

If you choose to think Packer just lied about it, that doesn't affect me in any way.
But I think if we accept his story then we find confirmation from another witness - PC Smith, his story confirms packer. That should be something to celebrate.
The pieces of the puzzle can be seen to fit without introducing the 'lying witness' factor, for which we have no justification.

Packer's statement is evidence, the suggestion he lied is speculation.

[Wickerman]

Gavin Bromley references Smith's beat and estimated times at specific points in Smith's Beat, Ripperologist no. 70, August 2006, and in a follow-up addendum in no. 71. Bromley's analysis shows that Stride and the man were passed on the same side of the street (Board School side) by Smith as he walked north towards Commercial Street between 12:40 and 12:48 am.

Thankyou Scott.
It's been a while since I read Bromley's analysis, so I forget the details. Though according to your explanation Gavin's analysis was based on his own estimates?
Do you see the problem there?
I notice the article is in Dissertations

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-smiths-beat.html

[GBinOz]

I take all witness statements as given in good faith, this is the evidence we have to work with.
You have to discipline yourself to stick with the evidence and not give in to dismissing something that causes you problems.

If you choose to think Packer just lied about it, that doesn't affect me in any way.
But I think if we accept his story then we find confirmation from another witness - PC Smith, his story confirms packer. That should be something to celebrate.
The pieces of the puzzle can be seen to fit without introducing the 'lying witness' factor, for which we have no justification.

Packer's statement is evidence, the suggestion he lied is speculation.

Hi Jon.

I agree entirely with these principles. We are each acting as time-removed jurors and we need to assess the evidence and resolve conflicts by considering the preponderance of evidence in an impartial manner. The opinions of others are entirely their own concern, as opinions are not facts, and while a degree of speculation is inevitable, each juror must make up their own mind. Whatever conclusions may be drawn, no-one is to be convicted, and there will be no consequences for anyone.

IMO Packer made some time errors, but when he initially said he saw nothing, he meant he saw nothing unusual. Selling grapes to a customer was entirely usual to him. He also passed the test of being shown a false body for identification.

While we seem to agree on Packer, we seem to bifurcate on our assessment methods on Maxwell. To me, she is the most solid, unwavering witness in the whole case. She is somewhat corroborated by Maurice Lewis, and had not the coroner closed the inquest early, might have received additional corroboration from other witnesses. Maxwell actually knew MJK and conducted a conversation with her. I find her testimony to be far more reliable than Long, Richardson, Cadosch, Lawende, Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox. But that is JMO.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Smith was on the Board School side of the street when he passed Stride and "parcel" man on the same side.

Hi Scott,

Bromley posited that Smith walked south on the western side of Berner, past Mortimer's door, and then north on the eastern side, past Stride and Parcelman. Are you aware of any indication given by Mortimer as to which direction the measured footfalls that she heard were were headed. I can't find anything in that regard. If the footfalls were headed south it would remove the possibility that she was hearing the escape of the killer.

Cheers, George

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't think he did, his story was that he found the body, then left the yard running to find a policeman. When he got back the police arrived within minutes, then the doctors. He says he lost interest at that moment.
The statement he gave to the press (1st Oct.) does say he saw grapes in her hand, but I don't see where he says the doctor unclenched the hand?
I can't find where you say he watched the doctor unclench the hands.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/search.html?cx=000723952817035431763%3Aucomtzxdr00 &q=Diemschutz+unclenched&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A 11

This does seem to be questionable, her holding something in both hands.

Don't you suppose she had grapes in one hand, until she dropped them? Cachous was in the other hand. So, she may have had stuff in both hands. Obviously, that means she was soliciting.

Diemschutz does say her clothes were wet, so it must have been raining at some point.

At some point?

EN: It will be remembered that the night was very wet, and Packer naturally noticed the peculiarity of the couple's standing so long in the rain. He observed to his wife, "What fools those people are to be standing in the rain like that."

Why do I believe Packer sold her grapes?

I would suggest it all depends on how you approach the case. If you treat it like a video game, then you can make any witness into a liar to win the game.
If you look at the case from the point of view of the police, then all witness statements are given & taken in good faith.
It's not that people don't lie, it's just too easy for some theorists to avoid a troublesome witness, or failing theory, by branding the witness a liar.
Problem solved.
I take all witness statements as given in good faith, this is the evidence we have to work with.
You have to discipline yourself to stick with the evidence and not give in to dismissing something that causes you problems.

If you choose to think Packer just lied about it, that doesn't affect me in any way.
But I think if we accept his story then we find confirmation from another witness - PC Smith, his story confirms packer. That should be something to celebrate.
The pieces of the puzzle can be seen to fit without introducing the 'lying witness' factor, for which we have no justification.

Packer's statement is evidence, the suggestion he lied is speculation.

I think confusion about the time is the issue, not lying.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon.

I agree entirely with these principles. We are each acting as time-removed jurors and we need to assess the evidence and resolve conflicts by considering the preponderance of evidence in an impartial manner. The opinions of others are entirely their own concern, as opinions are not facts, and while a degree of speculation is inevitable, each juror must make up their own mind. Whatever conclusions may be drawn, no-one is to be convicted, and there will be no consequences for anyone.

Thankyou George, to each their own, as they say.

IMO Packer made some time errors, but when he initially said he saw nothing, he meant he saw nothing unusual. Selling grapes to a customer was entirely usual to him. He also passed the test of being shown a false body for identification.

That is absolutely spot on.
What is so unusual about a customer buying grapes, or walking past the club, or standing opposite and listening to the singing?
Should we expect he told police he had two suspicious customers last night, they bought grapes - black one's. Then walked up to the club, then crossed the road and stood in the rain.
What are we to expect the police to do about that?

No, what he saw was perfectly normal. The problem the police had was Packer thought the time was 10:45 when this couple came to his shop window, then he said 11:45.
He told the police he shut up his shop about 11:30, but changed it to 12:30.
The story he gave to the press seems to be more like reality, but the police do not appear to have received an official statement from Packer to revise his first statement.
The police knew the correct story, but unless the correction came from Packer they cannot use him.

While we seem to agree on Packer, we seem to bifurcate on our assessment methods on Maxwell. To me, she is the most solid, unwavering witness in the whole case. She is somewhat corroborated by Maurice Lewis, and had not the coroner closed the inquest early, might have received additional corroboration from other witnesses. Maxwell actually knew MJK and conducted a conversation with her. I find her testimony to be far more reliable than Long, Richardson, Cadosch, Lawende, Schwartz and Mary Ann Cox. But that is JMO.

Perhaps, when we find ourselves on a thread debating Maxwell we may review what we think?