Different Killers

[John G]

He knew Dutsfield Yard.
He knew it was near a Jewish club.
A prostitute around there is a perfect mark.
He sees Stride. Now is his chance. She is alone. Open Yard behind her.
Prepares to act drunk and vulnerable.
He asks to go in there with her for a quickie.
She refuses him.
She gets VERY suspicious.
He knew she might cry JtR.
He doesn't want a crowd in a club going after him.
Just get her down so she can't run away. She has seen his face. Up close. Too much.
He blitzes her.
Schwartz is coming behind him. Has seen everything.
Cries out 'Lipski' to blame her attack on a Jew and to scare him away.
Pipeman is in a doorway opposite and doesn't see anything but sees Schwartz running. Schwartz sees him because his face lights up with his pipe. He can't see them. They are not lit. Has heard Lipski. Is worried this Jew running away has done something. Goes after him but later changes his mind.
By this stage BS man has her by her scarf and is pulling her a very short distance into the doorway to get himself off the main road. Too many people.
Inside the doorway he drags her over to where she is found later. She is unconcious or near it. He kills her here.
He decides that he isn't sufficiently deep enough into the yard and anything coming out the door will see him. He has already been spotted. He has already cried Lipski. He poses her. He leaves the yard. He is a blood lust because he only completed an MO not a signature. Goes West. The timing corresponds with Eddowes release. If she goes S.E and he goes W then there is a goldilocks zone where she potentially comes into his view. That's all he needs.
Locals at the club trample all the footprints and drag marks into mud. Disturb the body. Sweet bag falls from sleeve.

Hello Batman,

Stride's left hand contained a small packet of cachous. A number of cachous were also in the gutter after spilling out of her hand.

Now Scwartz makes no mention of the cachous. Moreover, she's unlikely to be eating cachous whilst being subjected to a direct assault. In fact, to be eating the cachous at all she would have to be fairly relaxed. Even if it's something Scwartz missed, wouldn't she have dropped the packet as soon as she was subjected to a direct assault by BS man?

[Jon Guy]

Moreover, she's unlikely to be eating cachous whilst being subjected to a direct assault.

She could still hold onto them, which is apparently what did happen

In fact, to be eating the cachous at all she would have to be fairly relaxed. Even if it's something Scwartz missed, wouldn't she have dropped the packet as soon as she was subjected to a direct assault by BS man?

I would have thought she would have just made a fist around them, or at any rate just held onto them.
Why would she have to drop them ?

[John G]

She could still hold onto them, which is apparently what did happen



I would have thought she would have just made a fist around them, or at any rate just held onto them.
Why would she have to drop them ?

Hello Jon,

I think the difficulty is trying to reconcile things from the perspective of Stride being killed by BS man. If she was eating the cachous when first thrown to the ground, isn't it likely that she would have dropped them at that point? However, Scwartz makes no mention of Stride eating the cachous. This creates major difficulties, because after just being thrown to the ground by BS man, she's hardly likely to be relaxed enough to stand up and then take out a packet of cachous, and then start eating them (in fact, she might not even have the chance if he recommenced the assault after seeing of Scwartz and Pipeman.) She's obviously going to be more concerned about what he might do next, or how she might escape or call for help. If this happened I feel that BS man, if he was her killer, would have to have calmed her down in some way prior to luring her into the yard.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

But wouldn't Liz have dropped the cachous as she "shoves him back"? This also implies a major conspiracy as what you're clearly describing is a serious altercation with the "thug". I mean it's surely inconceivable that no one in the club would have heard this, I.e Mrs D, let alone Fanny Mortimer. And why savagely slit her throat over such a trivial matter? Considering this was such an exceptionally rare crime the man would have to have been psychotic! In any event, I can only imagine that he would have felt provoked to take such drastic action, especially considering the serious risk of getting caught in such an unsuitable location for a murder, if a major argument had preceded the attack. Why did no one hear this? Why didn't Stride cry out as he must have "poked her Chest" pretty hard to cause the bruising?

1. If security guards were patrolling the building why was this not mentioned by PC Smith, Mortimer or any club member? Were they all involved in the conspiracy?

2. If the club was involved in a conspiracy then why did they say that if there had been any kind of argument they would have heard it? Surely it would have been easier to argue that they were signing so loudly a riot could have occurred unnoticed!

3. Even Danny Mortimer stated that the stewards wife must have heard any argument, particularly as the window was open. Was Mortimer therefore part of the conspiracy? Had she been "bought off"?

4. The problem is once you go down the road of conspiracy theories almost any scenario can be imagined. Maybe if we're taking this approach we should start taking Stephen Knight a little more seriously!

Hi John,

First,... based on the numbers I placed before some points above;

1. The fact that security had been hired for that particular night is documented, what time they may have left is not.
2. There is no need for any loud voices at all, this was in close quarters, and Liz's ability to call out ended when the scarf was twisted and tightened.
3. If you note Fannys statement, she said she was at the door continuously from 12:50 until 1am, but... if the act took place around 12:40-45 as contended by a few witnesses and the next edition of the Arbeter Fraint, then she was likely inside at that moment and wouldn't hear low voices or a 1 second scuffle. She was at her dor "off and on" between 12:30 and 12:50. She obviously didn't hear anything Israel contends happened at 12:45 either.
4. The "conspiracy" people keep calling this idea is more like a survival decision made on the spot under duress by people intimately involved with the clubs operations, and as such, most responsible for what happens on the grounds. The fact that at least 2 members and Spooners statements directly contradict the times given by Louis and Morris is likely proof of that.

The last point is the clutched cashous, for you and Lynn....when we are dealing with a situation that from start to finish was a few seconds, and a woman that had experienced mean men on the streets over the many years she had resorted occasionally to prostitution, you don't need a scared woman dropping cashous and running, you need a mouthy, cocky streetwise woman who felt she could handle the situation until the last second. The clutching of the cashous is a result of her intention to still have one after she extricated herself from the situation.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

OK, but the obvious difficulty is the role of the cachous. Gripping them tightly? Normal for pursuit is to drop and run.

Cheers.
LC

See my last point to John Lynn, this wasn't a frightened child of a woman, it was a woman who the year before was charged with a D and D.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

That would clearly be consistent with the time given by Scwartz, as regards the BS man incident. However, I'm not convinced the AF report is accurate. Spooner said that there was still blood gushing from her neck when he arrived, which must have been after 1:00am, which surely indicates a later time of death. Okay, I know he estimated 12:35 but that can't be right as there were people gathered around the body when he arrived. And didn't PC Smith arrive at around 1:00am, after being told a body had only just been discovered? Surely, if Spooner had been hanging around for about half an hour at that time he's going to get suspicious if club members started insisting that the body had only just been found! And if the doctors et al. were also told 1:00am that would indicate a major conspiracy.

Note the part in bold above....Spooner did not say he arrived after 1am, he was assumed to have been incorrect on his timing which presumes a time of around 12:40-12:45 based on the particulars of his statement.

"On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the Beehive Public- house, at the corner of Christian-street, with my young woman. We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police."

If you follow his route from Commercial when the pub closed at midnight, allow 15 minutes for him and his gal to arrive at the Beehive, then after loitering there 15-20 minutes, he joins 2 men coming back to the club you see that his story is that between 12:40 and 12:45 he is by the body with some 15 men in the passageway already. Also note, Issac K says he was sent by Louis around 12:40 for help....alone....if Louis and this unknown Issacs fellow left just after that then the incident occurs on the timelines I suggest.

Again, Spooner was thought to be incorrect about his time because based on his story he was in the passageway at around 12:45am...just like Issac Kozebrodski and Heschberg stated they were.

And again, Blackwell allows that the cut likely happened, in his opinion, between 12:46 and 12:56. Could it have been a minute or 2 early than that...well, it sure could. Phillips arrived around 1:30 and stated he believed the cut was made "within an hour" of his arrival.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

high time

Hello John. Thanks.

The time is VERY consistent with the Schwartz story. (The doctors said she died between 12.46 and 12.56.) In fact, I consider that another reason why Israel's story was concocted by 2 or 3 higher echelon club members.

Did Spooner have a way to fix the time?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Feelings, nothing more than feelings.

Hello (again) John. Thanks.

OK, darkness. The ambient light came from above and was cast to the south. So, surely she would not then turn 180 IF she were going into the yard--that would stifle even a bit of ambient light.

But, more importantly, would she need ANY light if all she needed were to feel them?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"1. Only a few feet from the pavement. A few feet from the gate. Incredibly short dragging distance."

Indeed. But dragging her would leave marks--if not tears--in her dress. And there was no mud on her back.

Here's a thought experiment. Try dragging a live subject (volunteer, of course) on the side. Bloody difficult.

"2. He is not dragging her by the feet. Neck more likely. Head first. That's west. Feet point at gate."

Has she been cut yet? But vide supra.

"3. Israel said, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man 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 loudly.

Since this chap has no problem turning her then turning is not a limiting factor."

Indeed. But, once again, she CANNOT have the cachous in a piece of tissue paper and lodged between thumb and forefinger AND retain them after hitting the ground. Clinical trials should establish this in double quick time.

"As a point. Pulling someone towards you, so that they pull backwards is a fast way to get them to use their weight to hit the deck. As they pull back, you push and they go down very quickly."

Precisely. But the derrierre MUST contact the ground. But no mud or wetness there.

"The fact she isn't shouting loudly tells me that he is already likely still over her and choking her."

But IF she were being choked, she couldn't shout at all. And there were no signs of strangling.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

post

Hello John. Your post #798 is the whole nub of the matter.

If someone can ever give a realistic answer, then BSM becomes the likely killer.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

confidence

Hello Mike. Thanks.

But that does not inspire confidence.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Of course, there were about a half dozen cachous left. And only so many can fit into tissue paper and, in turn, between the thumb and forefinger.

Hi Lynn.
I wanted to ask if you had ever considered this.

I have read a few cases where a victim, once on the ground and the life blood flowing out of her might grasp something that is on the ground already, her fingers wrap around it, and she dies.

Because these cachous were in her left hand, between her thumb and forefinger, and that part of her hand was closest to the ground, I wondered if the packet of cachous were on the ground already?

If you lay on your left side, left arm trapped under your body, but forearm extended perpendicular from the elbow, with the back of your left hand on the ground.



If the hand fell on top of the packet of cachous, just in the space between the thumb and forefinger, the spasm that causes the hand to clench might sweep up the packet, inadvertently, giving the appearance that she had been holding them, when in fact they were on the ground already.

It was a cadavric spasm that caused her hand to clench the packet, in life she wasn't holding them at all?

Wouldn't we expect them to be in the palm of her hand if she had been holding them?

[Purkis]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

OK, but the obvious difficulty is the role of the cachous. Gripping them tightly? Normal for pursuit is to drop and run.

Cheers.
LC

Is it? Surely evidence suggests it's 'grip and run'.

[lynn cates]

natural assumption

Hello Jon. Thanks.

You are suggesting that Liz, as she lay dying, left arm under her, felt the ground and found a tissue folded over on about a half dozen cachous?

I suppose that's possible. But permit an analogy. You are a crime scene investigator and the decedent is a woman whose left hand holds a pack containing exactly 16 cigarettes and whose right hand has one cigarette grasped by thumb, fore and middle fingers, filter end pointed away from little finger.

What is the most natural assumption?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

back story

Hello Purkis. Thanks.

OK, but WHY is she gripping them in the first place? Are you thinking about a good back story?

Cheers.
LC