Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Stephen Thomas]

Regarding Packer, it's quite clear that he saw no couple, just as he told White. He most certainly did not see Stride standing in the rain as he later stated because her clothes were bone dry. There is no doubt Packer was lying to everyone except PS White on that first visit.

Yes he did. Is something 'quite clear' because you say so? He said he sold grapes to Liz's broad shouldered companion. He was asked by White if he had seen anything unusual and he said quite correctly that he had not, as Caz has stated here and elsewhere. The whole Packer as serial liar/ senile moron scenario doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned. The only actual problem with with Packer's story is that he was supposed to have denied having been interviewed by police in the first instance but this story could well have been a journalistic invention.

[Tom_Wescott]

By the way I thought that Lynn was a female!

I'm sure he's used to that, having gone through life with a girl's name. I used to think the same, and I thought Archaic was a guy. So much for 'it's all in the name.'

[lynn cates]

chromosomes

Hello Maria. I am not offended; and I am XY.

If you'd care to, you might pop round to the Stride thread--I started it for you as per our conversation.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
I fear that I've offended Fisherman and Lynn with my suggestion that they've never garrotted a woman before. That was childish of me and I'll hope they forgive me. They are older men so I'm sure they've had far more experience at this than I have.
Tom, I'm sure you haven't offended anyone. By the way I thought that Lynn was a female! (And I REALLY-REALLY don't wish to offend anyone with this. )
(I'm posting this while stuck since 5 hours at the Orly aiport, where my easyjet (sleazyjet) flight left without us due to the French attendants being rude (actually real swines), and I had to buy another ticket from another “cheap“ company. Oh, the joys of Paris in July...

[Tom_Wescott]

Your theory involves Packer seeing the murderer, doesn't it, albeit after the event and in different circumstances.

No, that's not my theory at all. Any theory that invests Packer with any credibility whatsoever is not a theory to take seriously. I'm pretty sure I made this stance clear in my essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

ladies

Hello Tom. No, not a bit of it. No offense taken.

Indeed, I hope I have not taken down any ladies in the manner suggested.

Quite right about scarf size--just enough needed to do the job.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

I didn't know that. For some reason I had him down as someone who had never been outside of his home town. In fact, I don't know anyone in ripper circles who has actually seen him. How would we know him from a mug shot?

Or maybe my nametag says something other than 'Tom' when I come 'round.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I fear that I've offended Fisherman and Lynn with my suggestion that they've never garrotted a woman before. That was childish of me and I'll hope they forgive me. They are older men so I'm sure they've had far more experience at this than I have. And, as I'm sure Lynn would point out, 'It's not the size of the scarf that counts, but how you use it.'

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I understand he sometimes comes over to the UK for his research. What if we signalled him to Interpol, as a “red notice“?

Who - the Red Demon aka Tom?

I didn't know that. For some reason I had him down as someone who had never been outside of his home town. In fact, I don't know anyone in ripper circles who has actually seen him. How would we know him from a mug shot?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Regarding Packer, it's quite clear that he saw no couple...

Hi Tom,

I wasn't claiming otherwise.

But is there any evidence that White asked Packer a single question about his customers that night?

And is there any evidence that Packer had no customers, either on their own or accompanied?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask. If Packer had any customers that night, don't you think that one of them could have been involved, or may possibly have witnessed something himself, without Packer being any the wiser? And he did correctly reject Kate Eddowes as the woman he claimed to see with one of his customers, but went on to identify Liz as that woman.

Your theory involves Packer seeing the murderer, doesn't it, albeit after the event and in different circumstances. But it's no clearer that he ever did, is it? If anything, it's less of a stretch to imagine Packer unknowingly selling Liz's killer a bite to eat, than gaily perjuring himself after the event with a complete fairy tale, to satisfy two strangers and put the police on the wrong track. How much 'inducing' could Le Grand have done before Packer got worried or suspicious and told him to do his own dirty work?

All in all, it would seem more reasonable if Packer had served a couple, seen no more and thought no more about it until Le Grand's fishing expedition, then decided to make it 'sexier' - or a whole lot fruitier in his case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I´m off for two days fishing, but I´ll be back on sunday/monday, and I will respond to the posts written then!

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

“Cortès“

Zodiac wrote:
Yes but the shards are SO sharp and so versatile!!!
Oh no, please don't talk about my poor 6.8´´ in shards... Actually it has a minor fresh ding on the tail, but there's no use repairing it until after having taken all the flights I have to take in the next days.

[B]Zodiac wrote:
Spontini!? Wow, you really know how to pick the easy ones don't you!!! “Fernand Cortès". Is that the one that compares Napoleon to Cortes, as in that they are both the "Good Guys!!!" And the Spanish as the Evil, vile, despotic Aztecs??? I wonder why it could possibly have fallen out of favour post 1815? Good luck with it, hope that you meet the deadline.
Wow, I'm completely impressed! It's totally that one! And there are 5 different versions, each one reflecting the political climate of its time. The first one from 1809, politically ambiguous (showing the Aztecs as noble and courageous and insisting on the Spaniards' interest in the Aztec gold), which Napoleon didn't like and he even left the premiere before it was over, offended, another version from 1814 trying to make it more emperor-friendly which never went to music (because Napoleon dropped), the “official“ 1817 version (under the Bourbons) showing human sacrifices on stage and where Montezuma appears on stage, and 2 German versions from when Spontini went to Berlin (from 1824 and 1832), which are musically interesting, but the last one ends so stupidly, glorifying Christianism, with a huge illuminated cross on the stage etc. ...
I can't not make the deadline, because it's for a conference (in South Africa, of all places). As it happens I already have 20 pages from a British article (written from another approach), and what I'm currently doing is cuts and adding explanations to make it fit for a ZA audience. That's why it's a bit of a bore preparing it...
Anyway, thanks so much for the well wishes, I'll definitely need them!

[Zodiac]

Ha ha ha, this is so funny!
As for applying the advanced “surfboard, rope and coat hanger“ interrogation method, I think the surfboard, for its own good, should pass, fiberglass is almost as fragile as glass...

Yes but the shards are SO sharp and so versatile!!!

Zodiac wrote: Hold him under the "Prevention of Egotism Act 2002".
Wow, this is SO funny!

Hegemonic discourse in early colonial representations: Spontini’s historical opera “Fernand Cortès”[/I] (yeah, I know, terribly interesting + very relevant to this thread ...!)

Spontini!? Wow, you really know how to pick the easy ones don't you!!! “Fernand Cortès". Is that the one that compares Napoleon to Cortes, as in that they are both the "Good Guys!!!" And the Spanish as the Evil, vile, despotic Aztecs??? I wonder why it could possibly have fallen out of favour post 1815? Good luck with it, hope that you meet the deadline.

Best wishes

Zodiac.

[mariab]

Ha ha ha, this is so funny!
Actually I happen to have the perfect stairs for “falling down a few times“, the stairs to this tiny Paris apartment on the 4th floor, they're hardly 10 inches broad, made of old slippery wood, and they turn very sharply twice on each floor... (It'll be a nice deed getting my suitcase down tomorrow afternoon, the safest way is to just let it roll down on its own.) As for applying the advanced “surfboard, rope and coat hanger“ interrogation method, I think the surfboard, for its own good, should pass, fiberglass is almost as fragile as glass...
Zodiac wrote: Hold him under the "Prevention of Egotism Act 2002".
Wow, this is SO funny!
Tom, for real, I totally loved it when you said your Berner Street Mystery Part 2 was the third best Stride essay ever, and on the next day you said it was the second best essay ever!! But I very much liked your article on Kidney in Examiner 1, and I can't wait to read the Le Grand dig on Examiner 2 – that is, when I've finished my own crap on deadline first, which incidentally is called Hegemonic discourse in early colonial representations: Spontini’s historical opera “Fernand Cortès” (yeah, I know, terribly interesting + very relevant to this thread ...!)

[Zodiac]

I understand he sometimes comes over to the UK for his research. What if we signalled him to the Interpol, as a “red notice“?

I like your style!!!

If chummy doesn't cough after "falling down the stairs", repeatedly, on the way to the cells, then I feel that the time will have come to apply the surfboard, rope and coat hanger interrogation method! Of course we would need to hold him under the "Prevention of Egotism Act 2002" but I somehow doubt that this would present any problem at all!!!

Zodiac.