Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Stewart P Evans]

Stephen White

Here are the pages of Sergeant Stephen White's report that refer to 'Le Grand & Co.'

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Thank you. Good to see PS White's report in the flesh. May we see Page 1?

If all the Le Grand stuff appeared in the Evening News, for whom he and Batchelor were working, why was White attaching an extract from the Star to his report?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Your Wish

Hi Stewart,
Thank you. Good to see PS White's report in the flesh. May we see Page 1?
...
Regards,
Simon

Your wish is my command good sir.

[Phil Carter]

Initial

Hello Stewart,

Thanks for showing us these papers. I have noticed something that maybe you can help with.

The initial on page one. Would I be correct in thinking that the initial in the margin is that of Alexander Carmichael Bruce, with the date 5th October underneath?

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Stride murder scene

Mr. Evans, thank you so much for posting PS White's report on his interview with Packer. I think that until now this report has only been transcribed by Stephen Knight in Jack the Ripper: The final solution? And that Sudgen in his book doubts Packer's testimony? Could someone refer to me on what grounds? (I'm a newbie, I've ordered the Sudgen book and it's underway, but so far I've only perused parts of it online.)
Now as I newbie (with many apologies) I have a general question to all. I've read some conflicting things in the threads about Stride's death scene and I'm currently reading Tom Wescott's recent article on Examiner 1, but the information from all the different sources doesn't really add up:
1) The report on the postmortem examination and autopsy by Dr. George Bagster Phillips (who, I think, also handled the Chapman and Kelly autopsies) posted here on casebook doesn't mention any exterior injury marks as for strangulation, so it appears that Stride's scarf was used only to lift up her head when the neck wound with the knife was inflicted. On the other side, without having true medical knowledge, I think that in manual strangulation the marks are only internal, inside the throat, so that it might be possible that Dr. Phillips might have missed them? I have no clue if doctors in 1888 knew about petechial hemorrhagies and such. But I can only assume that the perp first attacked her neck manually to immobilize her, otherwise, how would it have been possible to take control of her? She was younger and clearly less sick/innebriated than Nichols and Chapman.
2) It's an established fact that she was clutching a box of cachous in her left hand, but what about the grape stems allegedly found near her? I think that the latter is doubted by many? But the postmortem list of her belongings mentions “a fruit stained hankerchief“ (it doesn't say “grapes“ though).
3) The grapes are clearly incompatible with what Schwartz reported about her being pushed around and to the ground by BS. So she had her cachous in her hand when she fell to the ground, which is possible, but then BS gave her grapes after having pushed her to the ground? Plus he seems to have pushed her in the direction of the light, which doesn't make sense if his intention was murder. And what about the conflicting reports between Schwartz and PS White?
I've perused different threads where all this has been discussed (even about the meaning of “pavement“ in Victorian London) and got none the wiser. I tend to think that either the witnesses have embellished, or they simply saw a different woman, or they saw Stride with many different men in a short time (which is totally possible).
Thank you and best regards,
Maria

[Debra A]

Hi Tom,

Not yet having read your article I don't know if you've already mentioned this, but the Timaru Herald [NZ], 5th December 1888, gave the name of Le Grand's detective agency. You're probably ahead of the game here, but it's certainly the first time I've seen it.

Hi Simon,
I did mention that snippet to Tom but we could find no further mention of a detective agency of that name.


Just in case anyone might be thinking Sgt. White was mistaken about the name of the company Le Grand worked for/owned, given that he was not allowed to inspect the letter Le Grand was in possession of, there is some confirmation that was the name of the company used on letterheads in the 1889 trial reports of Le Grand.



Just going back to Phil's posts on the subject, personally, I think there is no question that if Swanson and White's remarks are taken in conjuction with each other, they do confirm that it was Le Grand working for the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.

[Monty]

I have no other reason to be on this thread other than to ask Stewart, as he is granting wishes, to make me 2 stone lighter and 10 years younger.

And to say Hi to Debs....Hi Debs.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Maria writes:

"...it appears that Stride's scarf was used only to lift up her head when the neck wound with the knife was inflicted ... I can only assume that the perp first attacked her neck manually to immobilize her, otherwise, how would it have been possible to take control of her?"

I´ll tell you how, Maria - he used her scarf as a garotte. He grabbed it from behind and twisted it hard to the left, thus tightening the knot very hard. Such a thing would not have come about by lifting her head by the scarf, in my opinion. This would explain why the deed was a silent one - if we go by the lifted-her-head-by-the-scarf scenario, we need to get her onto the ground nice and silent first, and I fail to see that she would have complied with that.
Using the improvised garotte, he pulled her off balance to her left, and cut her as she fell. This tells us that she was leaving the yard as he attacked, and it explains how she ended up in the position she did.

"...what about the grape stems allegedly found near her?"

They were never there - they were the invention of the ingenious couple le Grand/Batchelor, aimed to lend truthfullness to the story of Matthew Packer. Ask Tom Wescott - this is his territory...!

"...they saw Stride with many different men in a short time"

Did you ever ask yourself why all of these men seemed to be of the same approximate height, all wore dark, similar types of clothes, all made a witnessed-about respectable appearance and when commented on, were described as sturdy-looking men? It is a question I have asked myself hundreds and thousands of times, and I believe that the most reasonable explanation is that there was only one man involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

1) If she was strangled, it left no identifiable marks, which is possible. But she couldn't have been strangled by her scarf.

2) She wasn't holding grapes. That's a myth.

Regarding the scarf, if you're reading my article you now understand how and why the scarf was used. Others will disagree, but there's little I can do about that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. How much is a 'stone' in American pounds? I've always wondered that.

[robhouse]

It is 14 pounds.

RH

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, House Party. So I'm just a bit under 16 Stone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Zodiac]

P.S. How much is a 'stone' in American pounds? I've always wondered that.

Hi Tom,

14 pounds, or about $21 LOL

Zodiac.

[Fisherman]

Hi Tom!

You write:

"If she was strangled, it left no identifiable marks, which is possible. But she couldn't have been strangled by her scarf."

Well, if she had her head lifted by the scarf in such a fashion as to pull the knot very tight, then her killer must for some reason have lifted a large portion of her bodyweight too. The pulling of the knot could not have come about otherwise, as I am sure you will appreciate. And if so, all the pressure would have been directed to a smallish area on the left of her neck, without producing any discernable bruise afterwards. That seems a bit harder to believe than the absense of any bruising after having used the scarf as a garotte, since such a thing would distribute the pressure all around her neck! Of course, there is also the problem of explaining why her killer felt that he wanted to lift as much of her weight as possible before cutting, when it would suffice to lift the head only.

And if you are saying that she could not have been garotted, it would be nice to see your explanation as to why this would be. I have already pointed out to you that it would pull the knot in much more efficient a manner than your suggestion, but it would seem you left that discussion?

"Others will disagree"

Others SHOULD disagree, since there is a better and functioning explanation at hand. That is how things go, Tom, and I suspect you know that full well.

"How much is a 'stone' in American pounds?"

Well, like I´ve already told you, it is a measure that has to be multiplied a good deal of times before it can be used to tighten a knot very hard ...

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[mariab]

Stride murder scene

Thanks so much, Fisherman.
Using her scarf as a garotte is exactly how I've come to picture it too, explaining why she made no sounds. The only problem with this is that the autopsy report states nothing about strangulation marks or petechial hemohrrages in her eyes, but maybe in 1888 medical examiners didn't look for these? Dr. Phillips report looks pretty thorough, considering.
I've read Tom Wescott's article in Examiner 1 and the only thing I disagree with is the he-lifted-her-head-by-the-scarf scenario, just as you said.
Fisherman wrote:
We need to get her onto the ground nice and silent first, and I fail to see that she would have complied with that.
If the grapes are an invention by Le Grand/Batchelor and Matthew Packer a fake witness, then I need to read Examiner 2!
Fisherman wrote:
Did you ever ask yourself why all of these men seemed to be of the same approximate height, all wore dark, similar types of clothes, all made a witnessed-about respectable appearance and when commented on, were described as sturdy-looking men? It is a question I have asked myself hundreds and thousands of times, and I believe that the most reasonable explanation is that there was only one man involved.
Actually I've pondered over this myself, but then what do you make of Pipeman, a witness or an accomplice? What happened to the package held by the earlier man, and why did BS start pushing Stride around towards the street, instead of conjuring her up towards the dark yard before attacking her? Also, Stride's inert, semi-compliant behaviour makes me suspect that she either knew BH and did not expect a real brutal attack, or that he had not paid her yet and she was being compliant until she got paid. Also, since one of the witnesses claimed to have heard her saying to her earlier companion “Not tonight, some other night", this might possibly mean that she had pre-arranged to meet with the Ripper later on, and if BS was the Ripper, then she might have put up with some light abuse in the hopes of a recompense higher than usual.
On the other side, were we to accept Cadosh' testimony, Annie Chapman didn't resist much either, and Wescott is right to draw the parallels between what Cadosh and Schwarz witnessed, IF they indeed witnessed the Ripper in action. It's probably no use trying to put onesself into the head of a 1888 “unfortunate“ who was so used to physical abuse all day long, and to wonder why she didn't think of resisting, or of arming herself with a knife when going out...
Best regards,
Maria

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"what do you make of Pipeman, a witness or an accomplice?"

Witness. Bystander.

"What happened to the package held by the earlier man"

He either passed it on or put it in his pocket. OR - not to forget that possibility - PC Smith got that bit wrong.

"why did BS start pushing Stride around towards the street, instead of conjuring her up towards the dark yard before attacking her?"

Because he tried to bring her with him - he knew her, was an aquaintance.

"Stride's inert, semi-compliant behaviour makes me suspect that she ... knew BH"

Exactly.

"one of the witnesses claimed to have heard her saying to her earlier companion “Not tonight, some other night"

That´s James Brown, and he probably saw another couple altogether. There is such a couple witnessed about.

"Wescott is right to draw the parallels between what Cadosh and Schwarz witnessed"

Wescott is right on a lot of things, believe you me. Not all of it, though, if you ask me. Him and me finish our jigsaw puzzles in different manners, but we have good fun underways!

The best,
Fisherman