A Whip and a Prod

[Michael W Richards]

I hope that the people who include Israel Schwartz in their viable investigation smorgasbord have also looked at how this scenario plays out without him. Without Israel, the only thing really that cannot be validated is Louis's arrival time. Empty street after 12:35 and PC Smith "carries on", validated by the young couple, Fanny, Morris and Joseph,...multiple witness statements independently giving the same approximate time they were alerted to the body in the passageway, an estimate of the earliest cut time being within a minute or so of those witnesses timings,... (in another physicians opinion, it might have been as early as shortly after 12:35 when everyone is off the street), ..the time the Police encountered the running for help club members, and the time they and the physician arrived on scene.

The important markers here have to be 12:35, 12:40-12:55, and around 1:02-1:04. Who can be trusted at those points? Based on the vetted evidence we already have.

[Michael W Richards]

The interruption model is not limited to the arrival of Diemschutz. It could have been any number of things including just basic paranoia regarding the situation.

c.d.

This Interruption Model needs to have some meat to begin with to rank it as a possible theory cd, as it is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride had any further intentions after the single throat cut, nor is there that the killer was "interrupted" in the process.

[Michael W Richards]

Okay, thanks.
Why does Edward Johnston say this:



Does he mean clotted, or congealed?

Likely the second.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The interruption model is not limited to the arrival of Diemschutz. It could have been any number of things including just basic paranoia regarding the situation.

That is fortunate, considering the improbability of Diemschutz interrupting the murderer, who then hides further up the yard.
Consider this exchange, at the inquest...

[A Juror] Was it possible for anybody to leave the yard between the discovery of the body and the arrival of the police?
[Diemschutz] Oh, yes - or, rather, it would have been possible before I informed the members of the club, not afterwards.

Presumably Louis means, the killer could have escaped when he goes inside to inform members of his discovery.
That's fine, but what comes next is really interesting...

[Coroner] When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark?
[Diemschutz] Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.

So the possibility of the Ripper hiding deeper in the yard, is denied by none other than Louis Deimschutz!
So much for that theory!

That the leaves us with the period of time in which Israel Schwartz claims to have walked by the club, witnessed the altercation, and then been chased away by Pipeman, merely in response to being labelled with an ethnic slur, by that un-JtR like thug, we know as BS Man.
Too bad no one witnessed this, or even heard it.
Too bad no one has more than a vague clue as to who these two men might have been.
Too bad Scotland Yard decided to keep this seemingly critical witness, away from the inquest.
Too bad no one wants to consider that the reason for all this, is that Schwartz was running away from the vicinity of the club just after 12:45, but not for the reason given!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, if the body was moved after she was killed, there would be a great big trail of blood from the point where her throat was cut originally. I think Phillips' statement clearly negates that possibility.

Do you really suppose I hadn't considered that, before suggesting she'd been moved?
In post #322 I give a possible scenario, that attempts to work with 13 'criteria'.
It has problems but this is a very difficult murder to explain.
Just look at all the talk about just one element - the scarf - over the last few pages.
People should be trying to put forward a scenario that covers at least most of those 13 bullet points, rather than just mentioning things in isolation.

Perhaps you'd also like to have a read of post #309, in which I deny the possibility of Jack having cut the throat, with Liz as close to the wall as she was found.

The trodding on a bit of the blood, and such, would also be hard to spot given the alley was a bit muddy, so such transfer would easily be missed when checking boots and such.

The passageway wasn't muddy. Whatever small amount of dirt had accumulated on the ground, had mostly been washed away by the heavy rain, earlier that evening.
The stones were no more than damp. Her clothes were dry. There was no mud for soles to pick up, nor does a police constable indicate otherwise.

It's not clear the transferred stains are supposed to be by hands near the throat area, we don't know where those stains were that Phillips is talking about other than somehow in relation to the flow of blood, which went from the body and down the gutter quite a ways.

You're talking words out of Phillips' mouth - he specifically says the blood was 'from the original flow from the neck' - not just somewhere from between neck and door.

[Robert St Devil]

That's fine, but then you need to at least speculate on the transfer of blood, from neck to ground near body.
JtR did not 'tread about' the body after cutting the throat - he is disturbed by the clip-clop of heels, and immediately leaves the body to hide deeper in the yard.
Isn't that the theory you support?
There should be spots of blood up that way then, from the bloody knife and hand. No?

If not Jack, then who has managed to put a hand or foot in the bloodstream, and transfer some of that blood to the ground?
Every witness who claimed to touch the body, stated that they were careful enough not to move the body, or get blood on their hands.
Every person within the closed gates had their hands and soles of shoes checked for blood, and all were clean.

Seems we have a mystery!
At least, we do in the interruption model.
On the other hand, if the body had been moved to the discovery location, then it is easy to suppose that some trace of that movement, would remain evident.

The only theory that I support, NB4N, is that there is a 30-minute window of time, from when the constable sees her at approx. 12:35a until another constable is brought to her dead body, when Elizabeth Stride is murdered presumably by the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper. Within that thirty minutes, I try to favor probability over possibility (but that still offers very little consolation in terms of the general mystery of her death). For instance, a) was her murderer interrupted by the arrival of L. Diemschutz; or b) was he spooked by I. Schwartz and decided to scram before a constable was brought round; or c) did her murderer leave after discovering that location under that shade-wall too dim of light that he couldn’t see well enough to harvest her organs; or d) {to be determined}…

I don’t believe that Dr. Blackwell was referring to a transfer of blood from neck to ground because he used the word “trodden”, which means that he is referring of a transfer of blood (by someone’s footstep) from the pooled or stream of blood to the ground nearby. Also he follows up this statement: “There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying” with this statement: “There was no blood on the soles of [Elizabeth Stride’s] boots as far as I could see by the light, which was a policeman’s lantern”. So obviously, Dr. Blackwell must have been aware that someone stepped in her blood, and he was trying to ascertain if that person was Elizabeth Stride. Could it have been her murderer? Likely; but then again, there were several people in Dutfield Yard by the time Dr. Blackwell made this observation.

As far as repositioning of her body, I’ll add this much: it was observed that she had bruises over both of her shoulders. However, she was found lying (mostly) on her left side. I just can’t imagine a positioning where someone could be exerting pressure over both shoulders while she is lying on her left side. There’s room for speculation: someone sitting atop of her and forcing pressure down on her chest until she expired or passed out (for instance!); regardless, it would just seem that she was positioned onto her side before the cut was made.

*all emphasis my own
**I am still contemplating the connection between her bonnet and the mud in her hair. Mr. E. Johnson mentioned that her bonnet “was lying on the ground by the side of her head – beyond her head, in fact”. Some people believe that her (and Polly Nicholl’s) bonnet fell off in the fracas; however I tend to believe that it was removed by the murderer. Her bonnet must have been off in order to get the mud in her hair , but it was found near the body, so was there mud near that rut|gutter? Questions, questions…

[JeffHamm]

That's fine, but then you need to at least speculate on the transfer of blood, from neck to ground near body.
JtR did not 'tread about' the body after cutting the throat - he is disturbed by the clip-clop of heels, and immediately leaves the body to hide deeper in the yard.
Isn't that the theory you support?
There should be spots of blood up that way then, from the bloody knife and hand. No?

If not Jack, then who has managed to put a hand or foot in the bloodstream, and transfer some of that blood to the ground?
Every witness who claimed to touch the body, stated that they were careful enough not to move the body, or get blood on their hands.
Every person within the closed gates had their hands and soles of shoes checked for blood, and all were clean.

Seems we have a mystery!
At least, we do in the interruption model.
On the other hand, if the body had been moved to the discovery location, then it is easy to suppose that some trace of that movement, would remain evident.

Yes, if the body was moved after she was killed, there would be a great big trail of blood from the point where her throat was cut originally. I think Phillips' statement clearly negates that possibility. The trodding on a bit of the blood, and such, would also be hard to spot given the alley was a bit muddy, so such transfer would easily be missed when checking boots and such. It's not clear the transferred stains are supposed to be by hands near the throat area, we don't know where those stains were that Phillips is talking about other than somehow in relation to the flow of blood, which went from the body and down the gutter quite a ways.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

The interruption model is not limited to the arrival of Diemschutz. It could have been any number of things including just basic paranoia regarding the situation.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Blood clotting is usually due to a reaction to damaged vessels causing platelets to bond together to the affected area , and it begins when the body recognizes that kind of damage. So initially, you wouldn't see clots in the stream, you would as time progressed and the clotting process advanced. That's why clots would be seen in subsequent blood flow, closest to the wound site, not in the initial flow or spill that's now further from the injury in this case.

Okay, thanks.
Why does Edward Johnston say this:

I left the body precisely as I found it. There was a stream of blood down to the gutter; it was all clotted.

Does he mean clotted, or congealed?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe you are correct, Jeff.

Dr. Blackwell @ the inquest: There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying.

That's fine, but then you need to at least speculate on the transfer of blood, from neck to ground near body.
JtR did not 'tread about' the body after cutting the throat - he is disturbed by the clip-clop of heels, and immediately leaves the body to hide deeper in the yard.
Isn't that the theory you support?
There should be spots of blood up that way then, from the bloody knife and hand. No?

If not Jack, then who has managed to put a hand or foot in the bloodstream, and transfer some of that blood to the ground?
Every witness who claimed to touch the body, stated that they were careful enough not to move the body, or get blood on their hands.
Every person within the closed gates had their hands and soles of shoes checked for blood, and all were clean.

Seems we have a mystery!
At least, we do in the interruption model.
On the other hand, if the body had been moved to the discovery location, then it is easy to suppose that some trace of that movement, would remain evident.

[JeffHamm]

I believe you are correct, Jeff.

Dr. Blackwell @ the inquest: There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying.

Ah, yes, that's the sort of thing I was talking about. Nice to see there are direct statements to that effect rather than just my speculative examples. Thanks.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Okay. Let's take the coroner's question - Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - and the initial part of Phillips' answer...

I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck.

Having thought about this a bit more, I think he could be interpreted as saying:

There was blood which I could trace to the original flow from the neck, from which I considered it had been directly transplanted.

By 'trace', I think Phillips means there is blood in the vicinity of the body which can be visually traced back the neck.
It is not just random contamination.
It's as though someone has had a hand near the wound, and ended up transferring the blood on hand, to the nearby ground.
Who could be responsible for this?
I think this is an important question, although I'm unclear on what traceable versus random contamination would actually look like, short of an obvious sequence of drops.

Having said that, I still don't understand why Phillips then says this:

Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

Is this part of his answer, or is he just volunteering extra information he deems to be of importance, but which may have little relevance to the question?

Also, I don't know what to make of this:





Why is the blood close to the neck clotted, while the blood further away still forms a stream down to the side door?

Shouldn't it be the other way around - the most recently lost blood (at the neck) being liquid - and the least recently lost blood (at the door), being clotted?

Maybe. I think any stain that could be traced back to the stream of blood, not necessarily traced back to the neck itself, would fit though. So, if it looked like someone in the crowd disturbed the original stream a few feet away from the body, then while the stain doesn't trace directly back to the neck it does trace back to the "original flow", with "from the neck" describing the source of the flow not the location where the trace leads to). Again, language is inherently vague on details, which is why it is such a shame that even these stains were not described. But crime scene analyses was not as it is today, we've had over a century of improvements in what should be done and recorded since 1888 after all.

In general, Phillips tends to always voice opinions on the grand side of the scale. More blood than expected, events require more time (compared to other doctor's estimates), and more skill is required (Phillip's thinks medical knowledge is required, many other contemporary doctor's tend to think butcher/slaugterman at most, some suggest no anatomical knowledge at all). I don't mean that in a disparaging way, we all have our way of forming opinions and voicing them. It strikes me that Phillips is the "go to guy" for a larger than most opinion though (and I don't mean this as a reference to your post, that's just my impression, and one I should probably investigate more systematically and see if it stands up to scrutiny, meaning I should put my opinion to the test as well!).

As for the clott, I think the clot near the neck is due to the fact that is blood that has pooled, the blood that flows is blood that has "filled up" the pool and then moves on (not sure how to describe that, but the first spills start the pool, the later blood adds volumne that then creates the flow) . The movement of the blood as it flows would prevent clotting from forming as quickly as well I think, and also it would be less noticeable due to there being less blood along the stream. I don't know enough about clot formation, but I would think clot would form more quickly in the wound, and so more is likely to then dislodge into the pool by the neck, and result in more clot forming there. That creates a mass that will be less prone to flowing on. Again, I don't know that for sure though. Clot forming in the blood pooling around the neck is mentioned in other cases though (Eddowes I think), can't recall it it is mentioned in the Kelly, Chapman, or Nichol's cases though?

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Okay. Let's take the coroner's question - Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - and the initial part of Phillips' answer...

I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck.

Having thought about this a bit more, I think he could be interpreted as saying:

There was blood which I could trace to the original flow from the neck, from which I considered it had been directly transplanted.

By 'trace', I think Phillips means there is blood in the vicinity of the body which can be visually traced back the neck.
It is not just random contamination.
It's as though someone has had a hand near the wound, and ended up transferring the blood on hand, to the nearby ground.
Who could be responsible for this?
I think this is an important question, although I'm unclear on what traceable versus random contamination would actually look like, short of an obvious sequence of drops.

Having said that, I still don't understand why Phillips then says this:

Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

Is this part of his answer, or is he just volunteering extra information he deems to be of importance, but which may have little relevance to the question?

Also, I don't know what to make of this:





Why is the blood close to the neck clotted, while the blood further away still forms a stream down to the side door?

Shouldn't it be the other way around - the most recently lost blood (at the neck) being liquid - and the least recently lost blood (at the door), being clotted?

Blood clotting is usually due to a reaction to damaged vessels causing platelets to bond together to the affected area , and it begins when the body recognizes that kind of damage. So initially, you wouldn't see clots in the stream, you would as time progressed and the clotting process advanced. That's why clots would be seen in subsequent blood flow, closest to the wound site, not in the initial flow or spill that's now further from the injury in this case.

[Robert St Devil]

Again, it reads to me like he's saying there was the flow of blood from the throat wound, and the only spots of blood other than any he mentioned already were, in his opionion, not worth mentioning at the inquest because he believed them to be due to crime scene contamination (though he phrases it differently of course). Again, I don't know what he based his opinion on (some spots being due to events after the offender left) because his wording is incomplete. That's the frustrating thing with working with the testimony as we have it, there are questions we would like to ask for clarification, but we can't do that. To me, his use of "except" only makes sense as him referring to "spots he considers contamination" (forms of transplant, rather than contamination, is the word he uses). I can't think of another meaning he might have been trying to convey, but that, of course, doesn't mean there isn't one and even if there isn't, it doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Unfortunately, since all we have is his statement that there are blood stains not described because he thinks they are "after the fact", we know nothing about those blood stains nor what he based his view upon. It might be something very obvious (the pony cart's wheels clearly going through the blood flow and leaving spots, for example, would fit; any imagined situation where it seems clear it was done just then, and given we have nothing to limit our imaginations one could make up all sorts of examples to illustrate the type of things that might count, but in the end, they would just be our illustrations.

Still, if you think his phrasing has another interpretation from the one I've offered, do share. I can't see it being a diversion, unless you mean there were blood stains he doesn't mention even though he thinks they occurred during the murder, and he's trying to cover those ones up in particular? But i can't imagine what those stains could be or why Phillips would want to cover up aspects of this murder scene? Or are you suggesting that Phillips was routinely misdirecting the investigation for all of the murders he was involved in as a medical professional?

- Jeff

I believe you are correct, Jeff.

Dr. Blackwell @ the inquest: There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If the scarf was tied and secured with a bow, grabbing the scarf by slipping fingers under and around the scarf, or over it ... and then turning the hand in, or up, ..twists the scarf and moves the position of the bow. If this is problematic for you I suggest you experiment with a scarf yourself.

Is this when in a vertical or horizontal position?

If vertical, and the bow starts at the front and she is pulled from behind, the bow position likely doesn't change.

If horizontal, and scarf is pulled upward by grabbing material at back of neck, the bow position should swivel around.
However, why would he grab there, and not at right side of neck?

And Liz was not dead before her throat was cut, not one medical opinion stated that she dies by strangulation, suffocation, garroting, choking, ...etc. You recall the 2 second murder situation proposed by the first medical man on the scene? She is alive until her throat is cut in that scenario. Then she bleeds to death, the fact that both major arteries were not completely severed slowed the cessation of the heart. She bled out.

And if she was cut around 12:46-12:56...(which Not blamed for Nothing is an estimated earliest time of the cut, not the empirical time of it), and Louis actually arrived at 12:40ish as 4 witnesses stated he was there at that time, then his delay in going for help actually guaranteed her death.

The relevant quotes from #349:

Let's assume death occurs two minutes after the wound is inflicted (does anyone have a better estimate?).

So we have Phillips estimate of 12:43-1:03 - for a mean of 12:53.

We also have Blackwell's estimate of 12:46-12:56 - for a mean of 12:51.

The mean of the means, is 12:52.

So time of death arrived at is 12:52, and time of cut is 12:50.

If death actually occurred 5 minutes after the cut (rather than 2):

• In the interruption model she would therefore die at about 1:06 - so when Louis & co go for police, she is still alive!
• In the nefarious club/conspiracy theory scenarios, she would therefore be cut at 12:47 - and who is walking by the club at that moment?