The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[lynn cates]

grasping

Hello John.

"The major problem isn't whether she held onto the cachous but why she would have taken out the packet in the first place. I mean, this is surely something she would do whilst relatively relaxed and not after just being assaulted, let alone during the assault. And certainly not whilst her violent assailant was close by."

Bingo. You are one of but a handful who have grasped this simple fact.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

clear

Hello Jon.

"In either case there would be considerable blood loss in the entry, and down the front of her clothes, not to mention a trail of blood from the gateway to where she was found."

Precisely. The forensics are so clear in this case, in my estimation, that I cannot conceive why any would disagree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

deny the existential operator

Hello Batman.

"The probability of Stride being attacked twice by different people in the space of 10 minutes is the bigger assumption because it is more complex and a much lower probability than one assault that resulted in death."

Actually, I agree.

So what does this say about the existence of "BSM"?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

simple

Hello (again) Batman.

"I don't see what's in the way of him dragging her in before killing her."

The condition of her clothes.

Simple forensics--much simpler that adverting to social science texts about 20th c sexual serial killers.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

concocted

Hello Abby.

"I agree, BS mans actions seem very un-ripper like. All I can say is that I think he may have just lost his temper once he realized she wasn't falling for the ruse."

So he heads north, past Commercial, then suddenly has a change of heart and heads south?

Why, oh why, can't we see the simple fact that "BSM" was a concocted story?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

recon

Hello (again) Abby.

"However, her scarf was found to be pulled very tight around her neck when her body was found. The dr made an emphatic point about it."

Quite. And I think this MUST be accounted for. I would suggest it be included in ANY attempted reconstruction.

To begin, imagine a face to face confrontation with BSM--whilst on the pavement at Berner.

1. Liz must already have cachous in hand.

2. BSM must reach forward and pull her scarf to his right (her left).

3. He must slash (but from his right to left).

4. She must stagger backwards into the yard before she begins to bleed.

5. Now she must spin into the position in which she was found.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Why, oh why, can't we see the simple fact that "BSM" was a concocted story?
C

Hello, Lynn.

What was Schwartz's motive for inventing 'BSM'?

[Batman]

Swanson and the press reported multiple witnesses to the assault, not just Schwartz.

Schwartz account includes another witness.

[John G]

Swanson and the press reported multiple witnesses to the assault, not just Schwartz.

Schwartz account includes another witness.

Intersting reply, Batman. I just have one or to slight concerns that you can possibly address.

Can you name any of those "multiple witnesses"? Is there any conclusive evidence that Pipeman existed? What about the reference in the Star's article, the only lengthy account of Scwartz's evidence, that "The truth of the man's [Schwartz] statement is not wholly accepted?If Scwartz was such a good witness why is there little evidence that he was subsequently utilized in the enquiry, i.e suspect identification? Why wasn't Pipeman, assuming he existed, utilized for subsequent identification purposes? Why weren't these other "multiple witnesses" subsequently utilized? Why didn't Scwartz, Pipeman or any of the other "multiple witnesses" appear at the inquest? Why did the police rely so heavily on Joseph Lawende for ID purposes, i.e. Kosminski, Grainger, Sadler, a most uninspiring witness, who clearly didn't get a good luck at the suspect, and even stated that he doubted he would recognize the man again? Why did the Daily Telegraph, in relation to Thomas Sadler's ID parade, February, 1891, state, "Probably the only trustworthy description of the assassin was that given by a gentleman who, on the night of the Mitre Square murder, noticed in Duke Street, Aldgate, a couple standing under the lamp at the corner of the passage leading into Mitre Square"? This of course, is a reference to Lawende, not Scwartz, Pipeman, or the other "multiple Witnesses" to Stride's "assault" by "BS man". Why did Anderson, in reference to Lawende's identification of Kosminski, refer to him being "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer", when Schwartz's evidence clearly implies he had a better view?

These are just a few of the concerns I have about Scwartz as a witness!

[John G]

Hi john G
In both those scenarios, she takes the cashoo out before he attacks her. Probably whilst they were meandering about.

I agree, BS mans actions seem very un ripper like. All I can say is that I think he may have just lost his temper once he realized she wasn't falling for the ruse.

Hi Abby,

But Scwartz doesn't mention the cachous, despite his detailed description of events. And I very much doubt, anyway, that she would calmly take out a packet of cachous whilst involved in an argument/altercation with the man, particularly if he was a complete stranger. It's clearly not what any rational person would do. And I think it highly unlikely that she would have been relaxed enough to calmly take out the packet of cachous after being roughly handled, i.e thrown to the ground, by BS man. I mean, at the very least, he'd shown himself to be a thoroughly unpleasant character. And why would she then subsequently agree to go with him into a narrow, unlit, i.e pitch black, passage?

Isn't it more likely she would say to herself, "Oh dear, this is a somewhat brutish individual, and not at all gentlemanly or respectable in his demeanour. You know what, perhaps he's JtR, I'm off!". But, then again, maybe she would be inclined to use slightly more colourful language!

[John G]

Hello John.

"The major problem isn't whether she held onto the cachous but why she would have taken out the packet in the first place. I mean, this is surely something she would do whilst relatively relaxed and not after just being assaulted, let alone during the assault. And certainly not whilst her violent assailant was close by."

Bingo. You are one of but a handful who have grasped this simple fact.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thank you, your comments are much appreciated. Clearly, just by ignoring or sidestepping this simple, but I think decisive, argument that you've formulated, which is clearly a prerequisite for anyone seeking to keep BS man alive as a suspect, doesn't mean it's going to go away. To my mind, it is fatal for BS man's candidacy as a suspect, and seriously undermines Scwartz's account.

[Batman]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520

Click the link on the first post to Beggs book.

Swanson reported to the home office that they accepted Schwartz.

It is unlikely the met police used a city witness. Hence Swanson probably used Schwartz.

[Batman]

Actually this page http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html describes everything I have said quite well and answers your questions.

The other thing is if someone kills Stride and at that exact same time walks west they will meet Eddowes exiting the police station within a goldilocks zone of timing. Not too short, not too long. Just right. All he needs to do is catch sight of her within his vision.

Here -> http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...97&postcount=1

Just replace the word east with west and it holds in that statement.

Again we are only going to hear about coincidences galore, if we reject Stride.

[Batman]

Nobody said she took out a pack of sweets in the middle of an attack. That's just a red herring.

Anybody can be eating sweets before being accousted. No mystery. Same way anyone can be doing anything they want actually. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else having a mint before someone commits a crime.

[John G]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8520

Click the link on the first post to Beggs book.

Swanson reported to the home office that they accepted Schwartz.

It is unlikely the met police used a city witness. Hence Swanson probably used Schwartz.

Hello Batman,

Firstly, let me say that I have the greatest respect for Paul Begg as an author, and for his knowledge of the Whitechapel murders. However, in this respect, i.e. that Scwartz not Lawende identified Kosminski, I think he was simply wrong.

The problem is that Paul B was attempting to advance Kosminski as the prime suspect, however, he was clearly insightful enough to realise that Lawende's identification was full of problems, not least because in 1888 he stated that he doubted he would recognize the man again. This then required a clever, but extremely convoluted explanation, as to how the witness was more likely to be Scwartz.

The reality is not a single respected author on JtR, with the exception of Paul B, as remotely doubted that the witness was Lawende, as the evidence clearly suggests kt was. Not Philip Sugden, not Stewart Evans. In fact, as Stewart perceptively argues: "This idea is not tenable...as Lawende was used in the attempt to identify Sadler he would, naturally, also be used in any other identification of a Ripper suspect." ( Evans a Rumbellow, 2006) In fact, he was, because we know that Lawende, not Scwartz, was used to identify Grainger.