Different Killers

[lynn cates]

collapse

Hello Batman. Thanks.

But only half a week later, that same paper reported that the police at Leman were skeptical.

I think this overwhelming collapses the idea Schwartz was telling the truth. (Sorry, can't resist a good mutatis mutandis.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parting of the ways

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, what's wrong with Liz coming up to the club just as a member is going home? They chat a moment and each goes his/her separate ways?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mindset

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Yes, fully aware that Swanson wrote of Schwartz as late as mid-October. That tells us something of the workings of his mind.

We also know that, around the same time, Sir Charles was considering a secret society. And this tells us about HIS mindset.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no fear

Hello John. Thanks for the kind remarks.

I never fear disagreement--as long as one is sincerely investigating and thinking.

Cheers.
LC

[RockySullivan]

On pipeman and the knife vs pipe....I know bank holiday murders goes into detail about sword sticks...is there such a thing as a pipe knife? A blade concealed within the stem of a pipe

[Pcdunn]

This has been a very interesting thread, which I've finally caught up with to the end (for now). The idea that Stride wasn't a victim of JTR is a new one to me, and I have enjoyed reading everyone's arguments and scenarios. Of course, I am now more confused than ever about this case!

[Batman]

Schwartz was corroborated

The Star
MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 1888

Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881001.htmlhtml

Police arrested someone.
The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

Add that to Swanson's clearing of the second man and there is our pipeman seeing two people quarreling and moving on.

I think this overwhelming collapses the idea Schwartz was lying.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"I still wonder what happened to the man seen by PC Smith, who was he and where did he go?"

I'd begin with, Why not home?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

The question comes to mind, did PC Smith witness the beginning of a liaison, or the end of one?
The man doesn't appear to be the same one as Marshall saw her with at 11:45, so there is a very real possibility this was another man, therefore, the beginning of a liaison, or at least a recent meeting.
So, why go home before the magic moment?

[Batman]

Swanson gives us details.

Hello John. Thanks.

"Does this really sound like the work of a tipsy fool, who throws a victim to the ground in front of two witnesses, out in the open on a busy public street, and then shouts Lipski, risking waking up half the neighbourhood, to scare them off?"

Most certainly not.

Cheers.
LC

Swanson used Schwartz's account to bring in a haul of suspects concluding that investigators are no longer suspecting the second man. Swanson alludes to more witnesses. This is covered well by Paul Begg in his book, JtR: the facts. That's no small thing and even explains that Schwartz was the Mets witness, Lawende the City witness. Investigators believed him and used him instead of Hutchison. That's compelling, IMO.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520 here it is!

On the 19th October 1888, Swanson wrote that 'the police apparently do not suspect the second man,’

News at the time fills in more details.

[John G]

Hello John. Your post #860 is after my own heart. You are a born investigator.

I just might retire from "JTR" and let you take care of things. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn for your very kind comments, they are much appreciated, especially coming from such an experienced and knowledgeable poster. I think that even when we disagree it usually forces me to consider things again from different perspectives, and I have begun to reflect on, and challenge, some of my long held views about the case. I suppose the important thing is to never be afraid to change your mind and to be prepared to consider all the evidence objectively.

Please don't "retire"!

[lynn cates]

no

Hello John. Thanks.

"Does this really sound like the work of a tipsy fool, who throws a victim to the ground in front of two witnesses, out in the open on a busy public street, and then shouts Lipski, risking waking up half the neighbourhood, to scare them off?"

Most certainly not.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello John.

"Isn't it Lynn's contention that the parallel cuts, apparent in the Nichols and Chapman murders, are absent in the other C5, thus indicating different killers?"

That is correct. Polly and Annie had DEEP parallel cuts to the neck.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

How many?

Hello (yet again) Jon. Thanks.

"I think that needs qualifying, it may be true that Blackwell spilled some as he retrieved the packet, but that does not dismiss the possibility that some had also been spilled from the package earlier in the fracas."

Quite true. But how many cachous can one hold between thumb and forefinger? They found six, if I recall properly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

There's no place like home. (click, click, click)

Hello Jon.

"I still wonder what happened to the man seen by PC Smith, who was he and where did he go?"

I'd begin with, Why not home?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Yes, Stride is MUCH more likely a "JTR" job than Kate.

Parallel cuts? Music to my ears.

Just wish Jon Smythe could supply some of his great art work to reflect this.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks Lynn. I think whoever killed Liz it was an incredibly audacious crime, and at least to that extent mirrors Annie's murder. I mean, we have a killer who possibly lures Liz into a pitch black, narrow passageway without the victim apparently having any suspicion of the fate that awaited her. He then cuts her throat, avoiding arterial spray probably more successfully than any of the other C5 murders. He also manages to avoid being seen during the crime or in the aftermath of the crime. No-one hears a struggle, or any kind of confrontation. Stride is given no opportunity to cry out or resist.That is despite the fact there is a busy club nearby, and Mrs D sitting in the kitchen, with the window open just feet away. Not to mention Fanny Mortimer, who was obviously at a loss how such a crime could be achieved, apparently right under her watchful gaze.

Does this really sound like the work of a tipsy fool, who throws a victim to the ground in front of two witnesses, out in the open on a busy public street, and then shouts Lipski, risking waking up half the neighbourhood, to scare them off?