Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

If it was NOT raining when she went out of the pub... at 11.. and Packer said he saw her in the rain with a man...
Either...

1) It wasn't Liz

2) The time was wrong

3) Packer remembered wrongly about the incident and may have confused two separate couples..

4) Packer made it up.

5) It was Liz, but it wasn't during the time it was raining and he did see her.

6) Any variable of the above, depending on whether Packer is giving a reliable statement or not.

7) The times on the policeman's statement was also queried, in the margin, twice.

8) There are various accounts of witness statements with varying times surrounding the events of Berner St.


All of which makes the situation unclear, to my mind at least.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

For Caz and Stephen Thomas

PS White's Oct. 4th report regarding Packer's statement to him:

'I asked him if he saw anything of a man or woman going into Dutfields Yard, or saw anyone standing about the street about the time he was closing his shop. He replied “No I saw no one standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise, and know [sic] nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning.'

I would say, Caz, that's pretty compelling information that Packer's statement was a lie and that he did not see any couple standing about in the rain. And this did appear in my essay, so I guess you must have missed it due to my many typos and grammatical errors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

bone dryness

To Tom and to the people asking about when did the rain stop:
You obviously refer to what the different witnesses saw or thought they saw about her being “bone dry“. And therefore we land again in the realm of total confusion and misinterpretations. I wonder how anyone could prove any of this, since her body was found in the rain and the mud anyway? Can we ascertain which “wetness and mud“ of it all was postmortem? No we can't! (At least not through the contradictory observations of the witnesses...)

[Tom_Wescott]

I LOVE dramatic tension, but footnotes are a must, otherwise, how can the poor reader defend himself against some manipulative author ? (By which I by NO means say are such an author!)

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.

Is there an inexpensive way to get hold of Jack & the grapestalk: The Berner Street mystery part 1 and 2?

Not really, since it's the most in-demand essay in Ripper history. However, it appears in Ripper Notes #25, which might be one of the issues you have on the way to you?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It stopped completely around 11:30pm and had died down a while prior to that, around 11pm or so if I remember correctly, around the time our bone-dry Liz left the Bricklayer's Arms.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

So, Tom, it looks like the alleged spiriting away of Packer by Le Grand/Batchelor is not mentioned in PC White's report? I'll check it anyway in a little while, straining my sleep-deprived eyes...
Quote: Originally Posted by mariab
The one detail that truly bothered me in Wescott's article though was his not having given detailed, footnoted proof from where he got the info about PC White claiming that Le Grand and Batchelor came back on Berner Street and took Packer away with them – just like that.
Tom Wescott wrote:
I made that part up for dramatic tension.
I LOVE dramatic tension, but footnotes are a must, otherwise, how can the poor reader defend himself against some manipulative author ? (By which I by NO means say that you are such an author!)
Is there an inexpensive way to get hold of Jack & the grapestalk: The Berner Street mystery part 1 and 2? If this is published in Ripper Notes, these specific issues were not available to buy online (although I've ordered a couple of other Ripper Notes issues from the UK, which are under way.) Please excuse my being such a cheapskate , but I had to cough up 600-€ to pay for my flight to South Africa, which the conference covers only in part, for which I'm (partly!) deeply grateful to them.
Tom wrote:
Plenty of dramatic tension in this piece as well, and more than half of it is true.
You can't possibly mean that half of this piece is NOT true, but you wrote it regardless? What the heck can you possibly mean by this?!?
Feel like I've been kicked by a horse (or an ostrich), think I need to go to bed here. Will perhaps read Examiner 1 from there... possibly... But somehow I feel that as soon as my head hits the pillow, I'll be out cold.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Could you please remind me at what time did the rain stop?

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. Read closer. I do not at all suggest Stride came from inside the IWEC. I doubt she was anywhere near the club while it was raining.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

........He stated he watched her and her man stand in the rain for half an hour. As you should be aware, the medical evidence shows her clothes were bone dry. Thus he never saw Stride and her killer.

Hello Tom,

If what you are saying is correct, then you are saying Liz Stride came from INSIDE The IWMEC into the yard? Because she must have if her clothes were bone dry...

But there is no evidence at all suggesting she was inside the IWMEC.

So without that evidence, she must have been outside, non?

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Seriously though, I did miss the bit where you provided proof that Packer had no customers that night, or could not have seen Liz or her killer at any point as he went about his normal business.

I never said Packer couldn't have seen Liz, I simply pointed out that he didn't. He stated he watched her and her man stand in the rain for half an hour. As you should be aware, the medical evidence shows her clothes were bone dry. Thus he never saw Stride and her killer. And why would her killer be hanging out before 11:30pm when she wouldn't be murdered for almost 90 minutes?
And then there's the small matter that Packer was not the source for this information. It was Le Grand who found him, Le Grand who kept him from PS White, Le Grand who wrote up the piece in the paper, Le Grand who 'found' the grapestalk, Le Grand who 'found' the two sisters who saw the grapestalk that was never there. This is the same Le Grand who habitually paid for alibis. Where in all of this is it that you're suggesting Packer told the truth?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"... more than half of it is true."

Exactamente, Tom - it´s the other part I´ve always objected about...!

The best,
Fisherman
going to bed - vacation´s over

[Phil Carter]

I wrote the definitive piece on the subject - 'Jack & The Grapestalk: The Berner Street Mystery Pt. 1'. It's not only the first and last word on the subject, it's the only word.

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.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Your certitude is only exceeded by your modesty.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

The one detail that truly bothered me in Wescott's article though was his not having given detailed, footnoted proof from where he got the info about PC White claiming that Le Grand and Batchelor came back on Berner Street and took Packer away with them – just like that.

I made that part up for dramatic tension.

In addition to this, does anyone (for real!) have un-ambiguous information about the infamous grape stalk allegedly seen in the passageway to Dutfield's Yard, and what about Simon Wood's assertion that on October 1st three people (Diemschitz, Kozebrodski, and an agency newshound) were reported to have seen grapes in Stride's hand, even if Dr. Phillips and Dr. Blackwell categorically denied having found any grapes by the body? DID people reported such, or not, PLEASE?

I wrote the definitive piece on the subject - 'Jack & The Grapestalk: The Berner Street Mystery Pt. 1'. It's not only the first and last word on the subject, it's the only word. Plenty of dramatic tension in this piece as well, and more than half of it is true.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Since I'm all rested (after 2 full hours of sleep and a traditional Afrikaans meal) and with no pending obligations tonight but tasting this really nice local brandy in my room , I might go through Examiner 1 again, and refresh my memory about Tom Wescottt's essay on Kidney and Stride. I remember finding most of his deductive reasoning convincing, even if obviously no one today is in a position to draw definite conclusions about any of this, since none of us were present in 1888. The one detail that truly bothered me in Wescott's article though was his not having given detailed, footnoted proof from where he got the info about PC White claiming that Le Grand and Batchelor came back on Berner Street and took Packer away with them – just like that. I have some difficulty imagining that PC White would just passively let 2 PI spirit his prime witness away and not intervene. I don't recall if PC White mentions this episode in his report, but I think not. Luckily we had a copy of the original report White's posted on this very thread by Stewart Evans himself, so I'll just check this out. And obviously I need to FINALLY read Examiner 2. Le Grand appears to be a fascinating, almost Dickensian character.
In addition to this, does anyone (for real!) have un-ambiguous information about the infamous grape stalk allegedly seen in the passageway to Dutfield's Yard, and what about Simon Wood's assertion that on October 1st three people (Diemschitz, Kozebrodski, and an agency newshound) were reported to have seen grapes in Stride's hand, even if Dr. Phillips and Dr. Blackwell categorically denied having found any grapes by the body? DID people reported such, or not, PLEASE? I would be very grateful if Ripperologists specialized in this particular events (such as Tom Wescott and Simon Wood) could enlighten me on this, because the info is so contradictory that it's a total mess here (which in itself does not suprise me in such an investigation).
(And I don't know what to think when people argument that the “grapes“ were blood clots misinterpreted!) Somehow I also have the feeling that Simon Wood suspects a cover up here (perhaps also involving the alleged blood-stained shirt given to the landlady in Batty Street? Oh, the joys we would have had with this alleged shirt and DNA tracing today, or with Stride's alleged “fruit-stained hankerchief...)
I also see I need to read up on Lewis and Parnell, and on “oblong“ blood clots, if such do exist postmortem...
Thank you all so much and