Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

To the Grave Maurice:
I think Tom was trying to differentiate between Stride's clothes getting wet from the rain when she was alive and running around vs. her clothes getting muddy and wet (obviously from the same rain, only a bit later!) while she was lying around dying/dead. The turning of the phrase was a bit unfortunate! And by the way I'm both very weary and very wet from the Western Cape South African rain currently falling...

To Phil Carter:
Without yet having managed to read Examiner 2 or the Ripper Notes #26, I've been thinking and repeating the exact same things as you said about the very dubious value of such inconsistent testimonies by different unreliable witnesses on this case, and not just all around Berner Street. Mary Kelly's time of death poses a very similar problem. It's true that in a court of law a judge would have had a complete nightmare with such contrasting pieces of evidence, but then again, today the investigation would have been conducted quite a bit differently, so very obviously the evidence would have been much richer and clearer.
Off in the rain to a dressmaker shop in town, having stepped out of the plane yesterday with my pants torn in two. No witnesses and no clue when or how it happened, and covering up with my jacket didn't quite fool the Arab workers at the Cape Town Airport, but at least they didn't act impolitely, and the ragged garments totally kept muggers at bay...

[Phil Carter]

Confusion and unreliability.

Hi Phil. Packer's pre-Le Grand statement is clear. No couples standing about. Packer's subsequent stories were lies. I hope that makes things very clear for you and Stephen Thomas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

So if I understand you correctly, you say that Packer's 1st statement is the truth, and any subsequent statement he made is a lie?

Now I don't know about you Tom, but if faced with that in a court of law, the words "dubious" "unreliable" and "inconsistent" would, I offer, be afforded such a man with such testimony by any judge summing up before a jury. A judge would cast doubt upon this man's testimony.

I am just pointing out that Packer's comments provide ample example that raises huge questions about witness statements, witness timing of events, police statements (especially where the ORIGINAL statement about time, written down by PC White is actually queried by A.N.Other policeman in the margin of White's notes, changing the times, twice) and by the clearly two different statements by the attending doctors.(Re.the inquest).

So if we are sticking to facts, it really does all depend on what, or who, you believe was telling the truth at any given moment...if at all.

It has been said before... there are way too many inconsistencies to have defining provable fact. Even the documented statement of the police (White) contradicts itself with the times queried at some point after 4th October.

Like I said, I believe any judge would cast doubt upon such evidence in a court of law. I am not saying you are wrong Tom...you could well be right.. but in my personal view there is much too much confusion because of unreliability of statements to form a definitive conclusion as to what is the truth and what isn't. That's all round Berner Street, not just Packer.

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

...Stride's clothes were NOT wet 'from the rain'...they're cut and dried....

That, I must admit, is a nice turn of phrase. And, if you aren't weary, Maria, then best be wary. (This thread is starting to sound like a Sondheim lyric.)

[mariab]

Tom wrote:
Again, it's an ascertained and documented fact that Stride's clothes were NOT wet 'from the rain'.
My point, Tom, was that, unfortunately, since Stride got wet and muddy in her death scene, it's going to be hard or next to impossible to prove how wet she got BEFORE her death scene, especially re. the unreliable and contrasting witnesses' reports.

Tom wrote:
The ugly truth, Maria, that you'll figure out soon enough is that not everyone's agenda involves the facts and the truth.
Ha! I'm sorry to say I've figured this sad truth ages ago, and in occasions must more punishing than the research on JTR.
Got to fiddle with the South African heating again. It's an either/or situation, such that it's either on and in 10'min. has to be turned off so as not to suffocate myself, or it's off, and 45'min. later I'm shivering like a leaf. Keeps one busy at night, and no wonder why South Africans are so productive. (Esp. since they've also adopted the British tap water system, where hot and cold are strictly separate and don't ever mix – kinda like “stationery“ and “stationary“...!)

[mariab]

Simon Wood wrote:
Hi Tom,
Your certitude is only exceeded by your modesty.

Phil Carter wrote:
Hello Tom,
Not feeling at all shy today I see Tom? One wouldn't want to think you were full of your own self esteem would one... good job it is written with a splash or irony...people might think you were big-headed! At least...I THINK it was irony.... you modest man you.

Tom, I'll be happy to read all your Ripper Notes essays as well as the ones in Examiner 1 and 2. Watch that head though, when entering a room! (Couldn't find an emoticon with a fitting head for this, so here: or here: )

[Tom_Wescott]

"The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain . . ."
You see, I said so!
Also, the two doctors constrasting testimonies illustrate what Phil Carter said most clearly!

Again, it's an ascertained and documented fact that Stride's clothes were NOT wet 'from the rain', regardless of what a lone press report says. This is not open for debate, because the medical professionals are clear on this point. Just as it's not open for debate regarding the fact that the rain stopped about 11:30pm. These are not theories of mine that I'm pushing, they're cut and dried facts. This is what I work from and is why my conclusions are solid. The ugly truth, Maria, that you'll figure out soon enough is that not everyone's agenda involves the facts and the truth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Just read your last post. No need to apologize for asking sincere questions. Just be weary of those answering.

[mariab]

To Tom:
So it seems. I've just ckecked and Ripper Notes: The hunt for Jack the Ripper features a picture of Packer with the couple buying grapes (where Stride looks more like Eddowes, by the way), so apologies for having taken up space in this thread by asking such beginner's questions.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

You'll have 3 essays of mine, including Jack and the Grapestalk.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. Nothing new here. Blackwell is picked up some cachous and put them back into the hand prior to Phillips arrival. This is one of the reasons I point out that it was a very compromised crime scene. The position of the body Phillips found her in would likely not be the one she was left in by her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Completely agree with Phil Carter here. The witnesses' observations are unreliable at best, a huge mess at worst, and some of them most probably might have seen another woman than Stride. (Not to mention the fact that it's not recommended to take the alleged times at face value, due to the fact that no one in 1888 Whitechapel wore a watch etc..)

Simon Wood wrote:
Illustrated Police News, 6th October 1888:
"The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain . . ."
You see, I said so!
Also, the two doctors constrasting testimonies illustrate what Phil Carter said most clearly!

Tom wrote:
You're right, I should have made it more obvious when I sourced White's report of Oct. 4th that I meant Oct. 4th of 1888. That would have made it far more easy to track down in one's copy of Ultimate.
No sweat about the footnote. Ultimate is under way from Illinois and due to arrive end of July, so I'll definitely check it in there if I'm still alive by then.
Tom wrote:
It appears in Ripper Notes #25, which might be one of the issues you have on the way to you?
I don't have the issue numbers, but what I've ordered is Ripper Notes: The hunt for Jack the Ripper and Ripper Notes: Written in blood. One of these might have an article by you discussing the evidence on Eddowes' body. I don't recall why I specifically ordered these two issues. (I recall they costed 4-pounds each though, which might explain it!)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Doctor Blackwell inquest testimony—

"I removed the cachous from the left hand, which was nearly open. The packet had lodged between the thumb and fourth finger, and had become almost hidden. That accounted for its not having been seen by several of those around . . ."

Doctor Phillips inquest testimony—

"The left arm was extended, and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand . . . I took them from her and handed them to Dr. Blackwell."

Doctor Blackwell [recalled]–

"I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."

Oh boy!

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

PS. It was raining in Duke Street until about 12.30 am

Perhaps, but not in Berner Street. If so, William Marshall must have had one hell of an umbrella.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Neither source is contradictory. Her left side, which she was lying on, was naturally moist and a bit muddy, but her clothes overall were quite dry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Illustrated Police News, 6th October 1888–

"The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain . . ."

Someone is not telling the truth.

And before you ask me why I would rather believe the IPN than Dr Blackwell, remember that he and Dr Phillips contradicted each other about who had removed the cachous from Stride's hand.

Regards,

Simon

PS. It was raining in Duke Street until about 12.30 am

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. Packer's pre-Le Grand statement is clear. No couples standing about. Packer's subsequent stories were lies. I hope that makes things very clear for you and Stephen Thomas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott