Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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!)

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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]

"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]

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: )

[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“...!)