Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 04:05 pm |        |
I was on the History Channel web site and I saw this as happening in 1888.
What's this about poisoned grapes? Does anyone know?
Please help me out.
Mark
"Five London prostitutes die (they ate poisoned grapes and were then
disemboweled). Jack the Ripper is blamed, but the killer is never
caught; the rumor later circulates that Queen Victoria ordered the
murders to distract attention from a scandal involving her son, Prince
Albert." |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 04:25 pm | |
Hi, Mark:
The poisoned grapes is one of the myths of the Whitechapel murders. This comes from the story told by Matthew Packer, the fruiterer in Berner Street who stated that he sold grapes to Liz Stride and a man. There is no evidence that the grapes were poisoned and the grapes only occurred in this one murder. Also it looks as if they have their history a bit messed up: the "scandal" involving the Prince of Wales that they are referring to is probably the Cleveland Street Scandal, which occurred in the following year, 1889.
Chris George |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 04:41 pm | |
Thanks Chris,
MArk |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 05:26 pm | |
Chris , I am afraid you are in error here.
The scandal referred to is the supposed relationship between Prince Eddy and Annie Crook , this is made apparent by the mention of ' poisoned grapes ' linked to the crime.
According to Stephen Knight the prostitutes were drugged by Dr Gull with poisoned grapes to render them senseless before the doctor dissected them.
Thus what Mark seems to be referring to is the Stephen Knight theory.
Simon |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:08 pm | |
Well, I, personally, am not. I simply read it on the History Channel web site, and found it odd that I had never heard of such a thing as poisoned grapes in connection to the murders.
But, it would seem that the History Channel people put some validity to the "grapes of wrath."
Mark
By the way, was there any drugs found in any of the womens autopsies? |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 08:12 pm | |
Hi, Simon:
Thanks for clueing me in to Knight's theory. I have not read his book closely. Pretty much knowing that his theory was discredited, I have been concentrating on such books as the ones by Sugden, Begg, Fido, Evans and Gainey, etc. I would like to point out though that the Cleveland Street affair was a public scandal that did occur. The Annie Crook episode may or may not have happened and was not a scandal as such even if it did occur, rather more a Royal escapade that was allegedly hushed up.
I wonder if the poisoned grapes will appear in the "From Hell" film that is about to be released?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 08:15 pm | |
| By the way, Simon, another reason that I answered Mark as I did was that he reported that it was Victoria's son who was implicated in the scandal. Of course, the Royal personage supposedly who had the liaison with Annie Crook was the Prince of Wales's son, Prince Albert Victor, the future Duke of Clarence. |
Author: Judith Stock
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 11:04 pm | |
(WHISPERING QUIETLY) Actually, CG, Eddy was ALREADY the Duke of Clarence and Avondale.....he was the future king......
maybe!!
Judy |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 11:35 pm | |
Hi Judy:
Nice to see you here. Hate to correct you, but Eddy was not created Duke of Clarence and Avondale until 1891. Look at the suspects page on the main page. S. P. Ryder doeth not lie!  [However, of course, the conspiracy theorists WHISPER WHISPER might insist he was already secretly Duke of C&A. . .]
Chris |
Author: Judith Stock
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 08:55 am | |
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I stand corrected, CG..... sorry about that; chalk it off to a late hour and a bad day.
No conspiracy theorist, me (unless you want to discuss Sooty and Puccini). I whispered quietly to avoid attracting the attention of several posters who shall remain nameless, and now I'm away again...to watch and marvel at the insanity.
J |
Author: Katarina
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:24 pm | |
| Chris-Yes the poisoned grapes are a myth of JTR but apparently they were found at the crime scene |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:30 pm | |
Hello Katarina:
The only possibility of grapes anywhere in the case is in Berner Street where Matthew Packer stated that he sold grapes to a woman he believed to be Elizabeth Stride. A grape stalk was found by her body after her corpse was discovered in Dutfield's Yard around the corner from Packer's shop, but it is not clear whether the stalk had been there before she was killed, dropped by someone else, or whether it is the stalk from the grapes Packer alleges he sold to the couple in Berner Street before her murder. Some suspicion about Packer's story has been raised by investigator Dave Yost of Casebook Productions, who wrote an article on the matter for Ripper Notes. The article can be read on our Casebook Productions website.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 10:33 pm | |
G'day Judith, Katarina, CG, everyone.
Just adding some more information which we already know. No sign of grapes were found in Lizzie's stomach at her autopsy.
This can either mean that the bloke Packer sold the grapes to ate them himself without offering any to Liz. Or Packer made up the story just to get his name in the paper.
Jules |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 02:54 am | |
G'day,
Jules is right! No grape skins were found in Strides autopsy and Mathew Packer changed the details of his story several times.
He next appeared after Mary Jane Kelly's death, not long after George Hutchinson, with another tale of two men who approached him with supposed knowledge of the Ripper's identity.
It would seem that he was just after the spotlight!
The problem I have with believing any 'Royal Conspiracy', started when I read how Queen Victoria had the power to nullify any Royal marriage she saw unfit! Why bother with any elaborate, evil plans?
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 04:11 am | |
G'day,
A grape stalk was found in a drain inside Dutfield's Yard!
At Strides inquest Dr Phillips said: "Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death".
LEANNE |
Author: cue
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 06:38 am | |
Hi
Did that give Packer the idea to get involved or did he really sell some grapes to the victim?
Good way to advertise your business!Plant a grape stalk?
Cue |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 08:10 am | |
Fruit stains on Strides handkerchief....Grape juice ???
Monty
 |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 08:58 am | |
Strike!!!!!
Diemschutz/Diemshitz or whatever was quite positive when asked by reporters that he saw grapes in the victim's hand.
He did not confirm that at the inquest, but he was not asked about it.
"Did you notice the position of her hands ?"
"Did you notice something in her hands ?"
I think the two questions above do not call for the same answer.
Maybe it's only because my mother language is italian ?
I may have here a wrong memory, but I think Diemschutz/Dienshitz or whatever does not mention cachous.
Are we to conclude that there weren't ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 12:28 am | |
G'day,
I just read this in the book 'The Many Faces Of Jack The Ripper', about Mathew Packer: 'He told the house-to-house enquiry team nothing about the grape incident. He told [inspectors] Grant and Batchelor that all this [the grape incident] happened between 12 and 12:30. He told Warren it was earlier'
Packer told sergeant Stephen White during a house-to-house search: '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.' White then met Packer at the mortuary after a detective asked him to view Stride's body. He said: "Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12 o'clock'
In another report he said that he sold a "MAN" grapes at "11:00pm". then gave a detailed description about the couples movements.
About Packers press statement after Mary Kelly's murder: The only reference I can find to this appears in 'Reynold's Newspaper' 18th November. Bruce Paley tells how Matthew Packer claimed that two men approached him a few days after Kelly's murder, asking for a description of the man who bought grapes before Strides murder, as they had reason to believe that he was their cousin.
Graziano: Louis Diemshutz ran off as soon as he saw the blood oozing from the victim, stating to the Coroner: "I did not notice the position her hands were in."
Dr George Baxter Phillips said: "The left arm was extended and there was a packet of cachous in the left hand. A number of them were in the gutter.....The right arm was over the belly".
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 01:04 am | |
G'day,
Dr Phillips said: "I believe the stains on the larger one [handkerchief] were fruit stains..." Then he goes on to state that the deceased had not swallowed grape skins or seeds within hours.
If Liz was offered grapes before her murder she could have spat out the seeds, (still attatched to the skins), into her handkerchief. Then the seeds could have fallen anywhere!
LEANNE. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 02:20 am | |
Leanne,
Matthew Packer did not see anything suspicious because a man and a woman buying grapes at his shop are not suspicious by this only fact.
I do not see any problem in accepting his declaration to sergeant White even if the couple buying grapes at his shop is true.
He just did not do the connection immediately.
Before recognizing the body of Stride he was shown the body of Eddowes.
This to test his sincerity.
He said it was not the woman he saw.
His doubts about the time is not, as far as I am concerned, much more suspicious than that.
At the time there were not legal hours for opening the shops and apparently he did not care about it a lot.
Matthew Packer was as sincer and trustful as he could be.
As was Mrs Mortimer, the most important and reliable witness of the Stride murder.
Apparently the trick used by the killers to dismiss such important testimonies is still working after 114 years.
Once again, stating (Diemschutz/Dienschitz or whatever) that one does not see the position of the hands does not mean one does not see whatever these same hands are grasping.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 03:52 pm | |
G'day Graziano,
I can see how a person buying grapes from someone who sells them is not 'suspicious'. However can a grape-seller give so much detail about his customers movements, after he leaves his shop? Plus he first said that the "WOMAN" bought the grapes, then he said that the "MAN" bought the grapes. He probably gave the police the impression that he wasn't so sure about anything, but just wanted to be a 'star'.
Diemshutz, (note the spelling), just ran to get someone when he found the body. Part of Dr. Phillip's job was to note the correct details about the bodies position etc. Diemschutz may have been positive he saw something in the woman's hand. I'll look for this press report!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 09:52 pm | |
Leanne,
it is true that nobody testified at the inquest about the grapes in the victim's hand.
But in the newspapers more than one witness reported it (I think it was done by Diemshutz but also Mortimer and another guy, I will check and tell).
It is also true that Dr Philips was positive that there weren't any when he arrived and took care of the body.
He was surely right.
But I do not see any problem in reaching the conclusion that Elizabeth Stride did grasp the grapes in her right hand when she was discovered and in a way or another they were removed before the arrival of Dr Phillips.
They could have simply fallen from the hand (showing that they were not grasped very tight after all) because the body was somewhat a bit shaken by the people around and then just not been noticed by anyone.
We know for example that Edward Spooner did touch the body as soon as he got in the yard.
Other people could have done it.
Of course, the grapes would not have been poisoned.
But, as for the cachous, I think the only rational explanation as to the way they got in the victim's hand is because the killer(s) put them there.
For the not finding any trace of them in the stomach I think you are right in saying Stride could have only swallowed the flesh of the fuits, spitting out the seeds and the skin.
Doing that she could have needed the handkerchief to dry her lips and her face around her mouth, explaining the fruit stains that Monty mentioned.
Concerning Packer I think he changed the terms of its first deposition because he was an old man who came to be submitted to a lot of pressure by police and reporters and he tried to be as precise as he could, maybe not remembering the scene very well after all and forcing himself to do it.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 07:33 am | |
G'day Graziano,
'The East London Advertiser' - 6 October tells of a Mrs Rosenfield who passed the spot on which Strides body had lain, and observed a grape stalk on the ground closeby.
If Elizabeth held the Cachous in her left hand her killer could have asked her to hold the grapes with her right so that she had no hands free to defend herself!!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 10:50 am | |
Hello Leanne,
I may give you whatever you want to keep in both hands, but if then I assault you, you drop all things and you defend yourself.
I do not know why they put the grapes in the right hand but the best explanation for the cachous in the left one, until today, is the one given by Ed Carter: to explain the origin of the cachous thrown in the gutter.
Thinking that she could have kept the cachous while assaulted or strangled is, as far as I am concerned, just going against good sense.
Thinking that her grasping them tight are the consequence of her violent death (sorry, I forgot the medical name of such kind of phenomena, explained among others by Scott E. Medine/Messina) is going against the testimony of Dr Blackwell who said the packet was quite loose in the hand.
I think nevertheless that the grapes had something to do with some kind of ritualistics: Black Magic ?, Alchemy ?, both are close anyway).
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: There were at least three persons who told the reporters they saw grapes in the victim's hand while standing in the yard around the body.
I do not have the possibility to check right now, but one was certainly Diemshutz, the other very likely Mortimer and the third one I really do not remember.
Grapes were spotted, as you said, in the yard by two ladies passing-by the day after and they were after found by two private detectives. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 02:12 pm | |
Hello,
All "rite", let's see, a hand placed on the shoulder, a rose and a maidenhair fern, a bread knife with a handkerchief "twisted" around it ("found" by the young Thomas Coram who may have supplied a coconut - who knows?) a bunch of grapes, some cachous, the line "You would say anything but your prayers", hmm, can anybody spell E-U-C-H-A-R-I-S-T?
Rob
PS - not to mention the gateway with the "wheel" and the Feast of St. Jerome |
Author: graziano
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 04:28 am | |
Hello Robert,
I would be interested in your explanation for the cachous in the gutter.
I think you do not give any reason for that in your theory.
I mean, ok for the cachous, but why for them being placed also on the ground, wouldn't the packet in the hand have been enough for the purpose ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 10:54 am | |
Hi, Graziano:
Frankly, I really don't see any conflict. Regarding a particular theory -- I don't have one. That is, other than theories relating to the Cults of Osiris, Seth, Isis and Horus -- and Blavatsky, who is placed somewhere on the pyramid. I just think that young and "innocent", "Thomas Coram" provides one of the best testimony performances with his line of 'folded and twisted'. Here is a good game show question: Who was Britain's greatest child welfare advocate prior to "Doctor" Thomas Barnardo? (that's if you believe that stealing children from their parents makes Barnardo an advocate) That's right! Captain Thomas Coram. I know - I know - a coincidence of name and all that - but I just thought I would mention it. Sorry, back to grapes. One can argue that elements of the Eucharist were present that night - that's all.
Rob |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 01:54 pm | |
Hello again Graziano,
Could you, if you would not mind, refresh my recollection as to your general theory regarding Liz Stride. By that, I mean, do you feel that she was 'killed' elsewhere and her body moved there? Thanks.
Rob |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 11:15 am | |
Hello Robert,
I know that on these boards the ones like you and me who rationnally believe all that thing could not have been the result of one's man action must allways be on guard, but sincerly I did not mean your theory or arguments were in some kind of contradiction on the point I made.
It was only a genuine question, believe me.
I was just interested in what you thought about the cachous in the gutter.
Clearly, why were they there if the packet in Liz Stride's hand was still grasped in her hand ?
My "general theory" is resumed by Mrs Mortimer point: "It should have been done while I was there (at the door of my house) (more or less)", "I should have seen something (more or less)".
She should, yes, but clearly she did not.
And by Mrs Diemshutz one, "I should have heard something (more or less)".
Once again, she should, yes, but she did not.
The explanations given by our experts friends to explain such points are quite inconclusive (to say the least).
I think Stride was assaulted in a little back street going inside towards Batty's garden down Berner street and brought unconscious to the yard and there killed.
Then some of the killers (or just one) went back passing through the last house on the right of the yard, flying by the back door of it (you may see it on the murders sites in Casebook production) and by this way reaching Berner street by the same little street where Stride was assaulted.
I think some of the accomplices stopped in the yard and were able to listen to Mrs Mortimer.
Something had to be done to render her testimony unreliable.
That's the moment Israel Schwartz (not an old orthodox Jew as shown in the shame "From Hell" movie but a young and rough guy) came into the picture.
And we may say he was a good actor.
Same for Morris Eagle.
I think there is no mistery in the position of Elizabeth Stride body only and only if you imagine her just "thrown away" while being moved by two persons.
I think there is no mistery in the cachous and grapes kept in the hands only and only if you imagine them put there by the killers.
I think there is no mistery in the fact that she did not seem to have fought or shouted only and only if you imagine her brought there already unconscious.
Like you, I think the couple of young people were standing on Fairclough street to keep watch of people coming.
I think that Elizabeth Stride was prepared there (I mean she was quite early there and they had to keep her there someway) but then just used as they were sure Eddowes was available also.
I think the guy seen by PC Smith had clothes in his newspaper bag.
I think, I think, I think and now I am tired.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 06:28 pm | |
Hi, Graziano:
I really appreciate your detailed answer to my question and let me assure you I in no way took offense to your own question. My weak attempt at humor was along the lines of, "There can be no conflict to my theory - because I have no theory for there to be a conflict." Which is essentially true, in that to me, this whole "event" seems "stage managed". I honestly do believe that in this story, things are not what they seem to be. There are times, and I'm afraid to admit this, when I no longer believe that these women were "murdered" in the literal sense. It just feels like one grand performance.
So when there are such senario conflicts I usually attribute them to something related to that particular "act" or "scene". And I totally agree with you about Israel Schwartz - the actor.
I don't think it is too wild to speculate that there were several levels operating simultaneously, working together, but each with different goals in mind, some small and some HUGE.
Again, sorry for any confusion. I always try to keep in mind the difficulty communicating in this way. And besides, I would never find disagreement with one of my father's favorite boxers. :-))
Rob |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 04:57 am | |
G'day Guys,
Reading Strides inquest, here's what I reckon could have happened:
Diemshutz drove his barrow into Dutfields Yard and his pony shied at something on the ground to the right. Lewis struck a match and saw that it was a woman. He hurried into the club, noticing no blood in the yard or on the body.
Until that time, the killer was hiding in the dark further down in the yard. Liz was lying there merely unconscious, having been pulled violently to the ground by a sudden pull of her scarf. She didn't raise either hand in self-defence because it was unexpected.
While Diemshutz was inside, the killer ran out of the gates, slicing Liz's throat on the way so that she couldn't later identify him. So as not to expose his own knife but to keep it hidden to use again, he picked up Liz's knife and used it.
Stride's right hand was lying on her chest, smeared inside and out with blood.There was no injury to to this hand to suggest that she raised it in self defence, so I'd say that her killer didn't cut her throat as she was falling to the ground. I believe he made her bleed as she was regaining consciousness. Dr Blackwell said: "....she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood."
Dr Blackwell also said of the spilled cachous: "It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."
LEANNE |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 08:51 am | |
Leanne,
First, let me clarify one point. By saying not "murdered" in the literal sense, I was in essence stating my opposition to the belief in a random selection process. And being that I feel there was a coroner or doctor involved, I cannot say with certainty, where, how or whom. As I have stated previously, this seems to involve the Cult of Isis. Therefore, what seems obvious at first, should probably be re-evaluated. As an example, was Druitt killed by his brother, did he commit suicide, or was he "reincarnated"? That is the type of thing I was hinting at.
Having said that, your scenario, while no doubt plausible, seems based on the idea of a lone serial killer. And while the "lone nut" scenario is something very, very unlikely, you did hit on something that I think is at the heart of the entire case: Blackness.
ROBERT |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 10:15 am | |
Hello Robert, Leanne,
Robert, concerning your answer to my answer, I could not agree more.
101 for the "small" goals and the "huge" ones.
I really do not know a lot about the cult of Isis/Osiris and their fellows but what I know is that I can read (following Ed Carter's indications) the words "Amun Râ" in the first two lines of the well discussed Graffito.
Just between "hate" from one side and "the Jew" from the other.
In fact there are a lot of similarities between what you say and what Ed Carter does (Ivor Edwards is in the same area).
It could not be different.
Whatever the truth, is only one.
Leanne, don't trust the sentence you reported (I do not remember which newspaper exactly did) about what Dr Blackwell said about the cachous.
It is only a misreported statement by the journalist.
This is clear from the same inquest report by the same newspaper (read carefully what Phillips had to say two times about them) and by the statement of Dr Blackwell as reported by (all) other
newspapers.
Moreover it would be materially impossible.
Dr Blackwell and Dr Phillips do not refer to the same moment when speaking about the packet of cachous.
Concerning your point about Liz having the throat cut after her discovery by Diemschutz, I'll have to go back to the case to be able to answer.
Concerning the smearing of Stride's right hand I think the mistery disappear once again if you imagine the killer (the one who sliced the throat) smeared it.
Why ?
Two rational possibilities (and, as far as I am concerned, only two):
a) He just happens to clean his knife after having cut the throat. He thinks he is doing it on the dress (darkness).
b) He does it on purpose to leave some kind of message.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 03:45 am | |
G'day Graziano,
That quote of Dr. Blackwell's about spilling the Cachous came from 'The Daily Telegraph'. Reading Strides inquest testimony reported in 'The Times', Dr. Blackwell said no such thing!
Dr Phillips points out a great dissimilarity between Stride's and Chapman's cases: "In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column..."
In Stride's case: "...the haemorage was caused through the partial severence of the left cartroid artery." To me this indicates that Stride's cut was more hurried, (i.e. to silence her and get away before Diemshutz returned).
Graziano: - The killer would have had no need to wipe his knife on Strides right hand, if he didn't use his own knife to kill her. He would have just disgarded it on a laundry door step outside.
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 03:55 am | |
G'day Graziano,
That quote of Dr. Blackwell's about spilling the Cachous came from 'The Daily Telegraph'. Reading Strides inquest testimony reported in 'The Times', Dr. Blackwell said no such thing!
Dr Phillips points out a great dissimilarity between Stride's and Chapman's cases: "In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column..."
In Stride's case: "...the haemorage was caused through the partial severence of the left cartroid artery." To me this indicates that Stride's cut was more hurried, (i.e. to silence her and get away before Diemshutz returned).
Graziano: - The killer would have had no need to wipe his knife on Strides right hand, if he didn't use his own knife to kill her. He would have just disgarded it on a laundry door step outside.
LEANNE |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 07:27 am | |
Hi All,
I have one simple theory on why there was blood on Stride's right hand. Louis Diemschutz in his statement at the inquest said he tried to poke at the mass(Stride's Body) in the darkness of Dutfield's Yard with his whip. Isn't it possible that the part of the body he was prodding was Stride's elbow? Forcing it forward against the wound in her throat? It could help explain why their was blood on both sides of her hand, wouldn't it?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 08:26 am | |
Chris,
Could be that Liz was very much alive after her throat was slashed. A vain attempt on her part in closing the wound ??
Monty
|
