Different Killers

[lynn cates]

take out

Hello CD.

"The timing of Liz taking the cachous out is critical as to whether or not the B.S. man was her killer."

Absolutely. One does NOT take them out in the midst of a fight, nor does one hold onto them whilst falling to the ground in a fight.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

location, location, location

Hello (again) CD.

"The scene you describe would be consistent with Liz being with a client which is what I think happened and I think that client was Jack."

One small fly in the ointment. IF Liz were with a client, it would make most sense for Liz to be behind the opened gate, next the building. But she was not.

Thought experiments are VERY welcome here.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cold blooded

Hello John.

"However, the fact that Stride seems to have been so relaxed, immediately prior to the fatal blow being struck, indicates that she sensed no danger from her killer. That would tend to rule out a dispute with the client, say, over money. What it suggests to me is that the client/killer was able to put Stride at her ease, giving no indication of what his murderous intentions were. So much so, that she must have been still relaxed, oblivious of any danger, whilst he was looming behind her, knife in hand, poised to strike."

Now you're talking. Have you seen my video yet?

"That is not only indicative of a pre-planned murder, but was surely exactly the same strategy used by whoever killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes."

Pre-planned? Yes, I think so. But Chapman was seized from in front (Phillips) and Polly had marks on her face consistent with a frontal assault--as Jon Smythe has shown.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

"...The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway..."

How does this translate into pressure marks?

The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders?
Dr. Blackwell: They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked.

Schwartz made no mention of BS-man holding her down or positioning himself over her.
The bruises, if that is what they were, could have been there already or caused by another assault by someone else.
Claiming that they are evidence of what Schwartz said is not correct, we can't see a connection.

[John G]

Hello John.

"However, the fact that Stride seems to have been so relaxed, immediately prior to the fatal blow being struck, indicates that she sensed no danger from her killer. That would tend to rule out a dispute with the client, say, over money. What it suggests to me is that the client/killer was able to put Stride at her ease, giving no indication of what his murderous intentions were. So much so, that she must have been still relaxed, oblivious of any danger, whilst he was looming behind her, knife in hand, poised to strike."

Now you're talking. Have you seen my video yet?

"That is not only indicative of a pre-planned murder, but was surely exactly the same strategy used by whoever killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes."

Pre-planned? Yes, I think so. But Chapman was seized from in front (Phillips) and Polly had marks on her face consistent with a frontal assault--as Jon Smythe has shown.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Yes, I've seen the video and I think it's an excellent re-enactment, although I'm not sure about the anarchist! I think, though, we can perhaps agree that whoever killed Liz must have been pretty disturbed. I mean, even most murderers don't usually slit the throat of someone they've been reasonably friendly with moments earlier. Moreover, I think she was very likely to have been killed by a stranger; if it was someone she knew it would seem to imply that she had been lured into a trap but, as I posted before, there surely had to be better options, when considering suitable places to spring a trap, than close by to a busy club.

I've just been reading up on the Nichols murder and, of course, Dr Llewellyn seems to think she was attacked from the front. What, however, still remains apparent to me, with both the Nichols and Chapman murders, is that the victims were probably caught unawares by the killer, and therefore given no opportunity to cry out or to offer any kind of resistance. In other words, I doubt that there had been any prior argument or confrontation that might have alerted them to possible danger.

Regards,

John

[Errata]

I'll be damned I think I just figured something out. Something probably of no importance, but something that bothered me.

She had a pocket in her underskirt, not in her jacket. So not the easiest of access. It's also a big pocket, and carrying a lot of stuff It probably went halfway down her thigh. The packet of cachous are in tissue paper, and small. Small enough to be concealed in the hand. So we aren't talked like a bag of chips here. She wouldn't put them in her pocket. The would come loose and she would be foraging down her waistband for 15 minutes trying to find one when she needed it.

She had a slight abrasion under her right clavicle.

I did renaissance festivals for 15 years and have had the exact same mark every one of those years so I can't believe I didn't see it. She tucked them in her bodice. The abrasions comes from pulling something out and replacing it multiple times. And it happens even with silk. The material of the object doesn't cause the irritation (though god knows there are things that hurt like hell after an hour or two) it's just the act of rubbing. And people think that the most secure place in the bodice to store things is between the breasts. But things falls down there. So you are either digging through your cleavage to find something, or it falls out the bottom of the bodice. The most secure place to keep something is right about where the clavicle runs into the shoulder, just above the armpit. There's a little pocket there on the chest right before the shoulder socket. It doesn't move, it doesn't fall out. And you don't look like an idiot pulling it out.

Which probably changes nothing, but since underskirt pockets were accessed through the waistband, it would have been kind of a big deal to put something away. Skirts rotate so you'd have to find the pocket, and it's big. The process of rooting in her pockets makes her vulnerable in a way it doesn't today. But if she wasn't doing that at all, if she was just pulling the packet out from her bodice, she wasn't vulnerable. She was standing upright, facing forward, both hands available to her. And she still had the cachous, so she did not at that point feel the need to tuck them away, which would have been so easy. And it took nothing to take them out and put them away. There's no timing issue. It takes a single second to grab them.

I think the only thing that affects the cachous being in her hand is fear. If she was afraid she would have tucked them away. She wasn't afraid. She didn't feel the need to have her hands free, and it wasn't like she was holding on to them because it was difficult to put them away. Either she was completely blindsided by her killer, or she had zero expectation of him harming her.

[lynn cates]

shoulder bruises

Hello Jon.

"Claiming that they are evidence of what Schwartz said is not correct, we can't see a connection."

Bingo! The doctors could not state whether they were there earlier or not.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Maybe he pretended to be more drunkenly incapacitated than he was.

Like Ted Bundy with his crutch.

Ed Kemper and his glasses.

I bet a drunk is a prime target for theft by a prostitute. Gave them the impression and confidence they could take advantage of him and not the other way around.

[Batman]

Hello Jon.

"Claiming that they are evidence of what Schwartz said is not correct, we can't see a connection."

Bingo! The doctors could not state whether they were there earlier or not.

Cheers.
LC

Combined with Schwartz's testimony which they where not aware of and neither he of theirs the conclusion is corroboration not falsification.

[lynn cates]

incapacitation

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, the point was that she could have met a chap at that side door. Alternately, Tom Wescott and Caroline Morris favour someone out near the privy. That would also work well.

Yes, Polly and Annie seem to be frontal assaults. Of course, Polly had been dead drunk and Annie was extremely ill. Perhaps that, too, played a role in their response to their demises?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

correct

Hello Errata. That's a good explanation.

Your last sentence is completely correct.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, the point was that she could have met a chap at that side door. Alternately, Tom Wescott and Caroline Morris favour someone out near the privy. That would also work well.

Yes, Polly and Annie seem to be frontal assaults. Of course, Polly had been dead drunk and Annie was extremely ill. Perhaps that, too, played a role in their response to their demises?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Yes, I remember you mentioned the side door on a much earlier post. I suggested Joseph Lave as a possible suspect, particularly as he admitted going outside, and I recall that you mentioned you'd considered him as a possible suspect. Of course, you also mentioned that he voluntarily gave his story to the press, but perhaps he felt he had to avert any kind of suspicion, i.e. if they were offering money to anyone with information. And, of course, he simply said that he didn't see anyone, so he didn't reveal very much anyway.

The difficulty that I have is that if Liz was killed by, say, a club member, or at least someone who had been present at the club, then they were clearly taking a big risk, particularly as there absence, and time of absence, may have been noted by someone. And if this was a pre-planned murder, as I noted earlier, there surely had to be a better location to spring a trap.

[Batman]

Schwartz made no mention of BS-man holding her down or positioning himself over her.
The bruises, if that is what they were, could have been there already or caused by another assault by someone else.
Claiming that they are evidence of what Schwartz said is not correct, we can't see a connection.

You have an autopsy report where they are unsure. Later on though you have a definite answer to this from the same person who wrote that report.

[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.

There you have it. There is no reason to change his view to one of mystery when it never has been and never will be.

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello John. Thanks.

I have been interested a long time in Lave. I think he emigrated to America just after this time.

I agree about the venue. I have often wondered--irrespective of killer--why Liz were at Dutfield's yard. No good answer emerges.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

You have an autopsy report where they are unsure. Later on though you have a definite answer to this from the same person who wrote that report.

[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.

There you have it. There is no reason to change his view to one of mystery when it never has been and never will be.

I know, and I agree with the Coroner, but who is the Coroner talking about?

No mention of the Coroner agreeing with the story given by Schwartz.