Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

[drstrange169]

>>1. She is grabbed by the shoulders from behind,... <<

So you are saying there were marks on the back of her shoulders from the man's thumb pressure?



>> ... and under the colar bones from in front (so two men)...<<

How do you grab somebody "under the collar bone"? What was he grabbing hold of?



>>Scarf is pulled and tied extremely tightly around the mid-to-upper regions of her neck, eventually causing partial asphyxiation<<

Were there marks where the skin was pinched by this action? Were there signs of asphyxia either internal or external?

Who did this, the man in front or the man behind?

Why wasn't Mrs Stride screaming and fighting back? If she'd been through such a terrifying ordeal why did she look so calm? Why was she still holding on to the cachous? What were her arms and hands doing while all this was happening? Did she try to kick or knee them?



>>The subdued victim then has her throat cut along the line of the scarf, with medical precision.<<

Which man cut her throat? Was she still standing or was she on the ground? You've already told us this happened in the street in front of Deimshitz's pony who you say was sprayed with blood.



>>Some blood falls to the ground as she is moved, and trodden in by those doing the moving.<<

Where were these footprints? Who saw them and when?



>> How could blood have been trodden in if she were not moved after the throat was cut?<<

Is that meant to be a joke?

[Joshua Rogan]

>>Some blood falls to the ground as she is moved, and trodden in by those doing the moving.<<

Where were these footprints? Who saw them and when?

Dr Blackwell noted these;

"There were no spots of blood-but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying."

However, his assistant Edward Johnson, who examined Liz a few minutes earlier, saw no such thing;

"I looked right along the stream of blood, but there was no mark of any one having stepped in it."

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that they were made sometime between the two examinations.

[Joshua Rogan]

There was no arterial spray around were the body lay.
Therefore, her throat was cut at some distance from were she ended up, because she was moved there.
Did JtR move any of the other C5? No.
She was moved there by members of the club, including Louis Diemschutz.

More likely she was killed where she was found, but as the left side of her throat was facing the ground when it was cut, any evidence of arterial spray there might have been would be obscured by the subsequent pool of blood that formed beneath her neck.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

When 5 psi compression of the carotid arteries for as little as 10 seconds is sufficient to render someone unconscious and close to death,why would Jack use a scarf!

Stage hypnotists have used the technique for many decades.

Because whoever tied the scarf was not also the person who wielded the knife.
I think we need to keep in mind that very few people, even fairly violent types, would be willing to kill a human being.
So the idea is to first get her subdued, and then whoever in the group has the stomach for it, can cut the throat.
That isn't meant to suggest that I think Mitre Square is unrelated.
More that those involved in the Stride murder are what you might call the B-team.
IWMEC members at the club are more about the orchestration than the actual murders. Oh, and sending letters ... from Hell.

Re your support for the strangulation of Stride.
A quote from this dissertation:

Edward Johnston (Daily Telegraph): There was a stream of blood down to the gutter; it was all clotted. There was very little blood near the neck; it had all run away.

So a large amount of blood is lost.
If she is strangled prior to the incision, there is no arterial pressure.
Is the amount of blood that drains away from the neck really compatible with strangulation?
It sure does explain the lack of other blood around the body, but at the same time it begs more questions than it answers.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Dr Blackwell noted these;

"There were no spots of blood-but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying."

However, his assistant Edward Johnson, who examined Liz a few minutes earlier, saw no such thing;

"I looked right along the stream of blood, but there was no mark of any one having stepped in it."

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that they were made sometime between the two examinations.

I interpret those quotes quite differently.
Blackwell is referring to the general area around the body.
Johnson is referring to the gutter, in which blood is streaming from the neck down to the door.
On that interpretation, the trodden in blood is intriguing.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

More likely she was killed where she was found, but as the left side of her throat was facing the ground when it was cut, any evidence of arterial spray there might have been would be obscured by the subsequent pool of blood that formed beneath her neck.

How well does this fit with Dr Blackwell's description of the incision?

The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.

The deepest area of cut is on the side she lays (her left).
Maybe JtR straddles over her and pulls up the head?
We would still need to explain how he gets her in this position, keeps her quiet enough, and still have her (partially) holding onto the cachous packet.

There is another serious issue with this explanation.
The incision carefully traces the lower edge of the scarf.
How does Jack manage to cut in this manner, with Liz on her left side and facing the wall?
The nature of the cut hints that someone is next to Jack holding a candle so he can see what he is doing.
Was there also a candle holder in Mitre Square?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

drstrange:

So you are saying there were marks on the back of her shoulders from the man's thumb pressure?

Yes. Especially the right. Left hand also has to cover the mouth.
Something curious about Dr Phillips comment...

Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since.

Since 3 days ago?

How do you grab somebody "under the collar bone"? What was he grabbing hold of?

You don't, but a man could clench the arms of a woman the size of Liz Stride, and still be able to press thumbs into collar bone region.

>>Scarf is pulled and tied extremely tightly around the mid-to-upper regions of her neck, eventually causing partial asphyxiation<<

Were there marks where the skin was pinched by this action? Were there signs of asphyxia either internal or external?

Who did this, the man in front or the man behind?

Why wasn't Mrs Stride screaming and fighting back? If she'd been through such a terrifying ordeal why did she look so calm? Why was she still holding on to the cachous? What were her arms and hands doing while all this was happening? Did she try to kick or knee them?

The scarf is soft and pressure is over a broad region of the neck. No marks.
I'm calling this evidence for partial asphyxia:

Both lungs were unusually pale. The heart was small; left ventricle firmly contracted, right less so. Right ventricle full of dark clot; left absolutely empty.

I think Dave also mentioned that the heart had appeared to bulge, or something along those lines.
The point being that heart and lungs appear to be working extremely hard, but there are no external signs of strangulation.

This following is far-fetched and I'm not saying I believe this, but will put it out there anyway.

Israel Schwartz: He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly.

Screaming but not loudly is almost an oxymoron.
Did Schwartz actually hear choked screams?
I know he sees a woman talking to a man, but maybe it just looked like that from a distance, in the darkness.

Pressure of thumbs is disabling, preventing fightback.
Hand on mouth or object in it keeps her quiet enough.
Partial asphyxia is the reason for the calm look - she is partly "out if it" when the knife penetrates.

Which man cut her throat? Was she still standing or was she on the ground? You've already told us this happened in the street in front of Deimshitz's pony who you say was sprayed with blood.

Cutting along the line of the scarf would I think, require the cutter to be in front or above her.
He would also require candle light (as would be required to remove a kidney, later that evening).
Standing up is not compatible (really) with holding onto the cachous packet.
Cutting with her on her back causes arterial spray, but lets her gradually let go of the cachous packet (some were found in the gutter and other areas).
How about this scenario, starting at or just outside gateway:

1. Grab her front and back, restraining arms and covering mouth (or stuffing it with a sock)
2. Cachous packet falls to ground, and is picked up by a man (don't won't to muddy the evidence)
3. Scarf is tied tightly, causing partial asphyxia - possibly over minutes
4. Victim is laid down on some object that might catch some blood spray, like an old blanket
5. Throat is cut
6. Cachous packet is placed into left hand, and hand closed
7. Both hands are folded across torso
8. Victim is moved to just inside the gate and laid on left side, away from path of cart
9. A small amount of blood drops to the ground as body is moved, and is walked on at the time
10. Throat incision is not adequate to causes quick death, and blood pressure remains high enough for long enough to cause massive bleeding
11. Left hand partially opens as it relaxes, as victim approaches death. Cachous is partially scattered but packet remains wedged between thumb and finger
12. Pony and cart are driven down lane
13. Diemschutz rushes inside for "help"

I think that explains most of the "conflicting requirements" reasonably well.

[Michael W Richards]

What ho.
Louis didn't leave the cart right beside the body, but further down the yard;

"What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door."

The door was six or seven yards from the body, so the pony and cart wouldn't have been too much in the way. If they were, it's possible he moved it further down the yard before the police arrived, it wouldn't have taken long. Or it may have wandered that way on it's own?

The yard did have a stable at the end, so presumably Louis would normally have led the pony furher down after unloading and turned around where it widened out.

Maybe if we didnt use quotes from someone who lied at the Inquest and to the Police it might be clearer Josh. Louis said he arrived "precisely" at 1, Fanny Mortimer, who we know was at her door from 12:50 until just after 1am...by virtue of her Leon Goldstein sighting... saw no-one arrive. No-one mentioned the cart and horse being around when the crowd started to gather...which was according to 4 gdamn witnesses near 12:45.

Ill ask the question, in what alternate dimension does a witness who provably lies and has direct responsibility for explaining how a dead woman happened to be in the alleyway supersede 4 witnesses, none of which could conceivably be financially inconvenienced by suspicions by the police upon the club. This head in the sand business is really tiresome.

Name one other murder investigation where a man proven to have lied is suddenly more credible than 4 witnesses. Just one.

[Michael W Richards]

Lewis Dienishitz [Diemschutz], having affirmed, deposed: I reside at No. 40 Berner-street, and am steward of the International Workmen's Club. I am married, and my wife lives at the club too, and assists in the management. On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street. I had been to the market near the Crystal Palace, and had a barrow like a costermonger's, drawn by a pony, which I keep in George-yard Cable-street. I drove home to leave my goods. I drove into the yard, both gates being wide open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what. It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there. I could tell from the dress that it was the figure of a woman.

Another lie in bold above, all other witness accounts have only the left hand gate open. Its why Liz wasnt visible from the street, she was behind it, and we have corroberation for that to have been the normal case by prior witness observations on other nights.

[DJA]

What all other witness accounts?

[DJA]

Surprised Michael W Richards hasn't contributed to this thread !! Ha ha

Now look at what you've done!

[drstrange169]

>> Blackwell is referring to the general area around the body.
Johnson is referring to the gutter, in which blood is streaming from the neck down to the door.
On that interpretation, the trodden in blood is intriguing.<<

All club members were checked and found to be free of blood, so we know it was not any of them, which leaves Johnston or one of the early arriving policemen as the likely culprit.

Nobody can serious believe that bloody footprints leading towards the body from the street is something people as experienced as Phillips and Reid would have ignored.

[drstrange169]

>> How well does this fit with Dr Blackwell's description of the incision?<<

Perfectly, as noted by Dr Phillips.

[drstrange169]

>>Especially the right. Left hand also has to cover the mouth.<<

So we are looking for a three handed man, that shouldn't have been to hard to find.

You still haven't explained why there were no thumb marks on Mrs Stride's back.

However, Dr. Phillips description is perfect in sync with somebody grabbing her from the front. The fingers bruising the shoulders whilst the opposing thumbs bruised just under the collar bone. The exact span of a hand.



>> ... a man could clench the arms of a woman the size of Liz Stride, and still be able to press thumbs into collar bone region<<

In which case there would be bruising to the arms or wrists.



>>Did Schwartz actually hear choked screams?
I know he sees a woman talking to a man, but maybe it just looked like that from a distance, in the darkness.<<

What Schwartz definitely didn't see, was a group of men, a blanket and a pony and cart!



>>Cutting along the line of the scarf would I think, require the cutter to be in front or above her.<<

So he was left handed?

Why did he have to deliberately cut exactly along the scarf line? What was the point of that?

Isn't there a far more logic answer that explains just about everything?



>>Grab her front and back, restraining arms and covering mouth (or stuffing it with a sock)<<

Disproved by the forensic evidence and Schwartz's if he is to be believed.



>>Cachous packet falls to ground, and is picked up by a man (don't won't to muddy the evidence)<<

Dr Blackwell split the cachous, you really have to start reading the evidence.

Sorry, but the rest just isn't worth commenting on. We've gone from ponies covered in blood to blankets in the street.

Time to move on folks, nothing to see here.

[drstrange169]

>> Maybe if we didnt use quotes from someone who lied at the Inquest and to the Police it might be clearer Josh. Louis said he arrived "precisely" at 1...<<

Maybe if you put quotation marks round a word, you should use the right word. "Exactly" was the word Deimshitz was quoted as saying not "precisely". Not important really, other than to show the lack of thought gone into your post.

Here's what Deimshitz's is quoted as saying, back in it's full and important context,

"I left home about half-past eleven on Saturday morning, and returned home exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street."

Deimshitz's time is determined by Harris's clock. Can you show me where any other witness references their time by that same clock? If not, there is no case to answer. You are simply making up a notion that time was universally synced in 1888. If we want to talk about lies that is the possibly the bigger one.

The same "lie" is used in the Crossmere theory and it's just as "dishonestly" used there too!