The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[John G]

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.

But according to Scwartz's evidence she wasn't "eating sweets" prior to being accosted! Even if she was I doubt she managed to hold on to them whilst being dragged into the street! Even if she did I very much doubt that she would have held on to them whilst subsequently being thrown down on to the footway! Even if she did, I very much doubt that she would have been able to hang onto them whilst being dragged into the pitch-black darkness of Dutfileld's Yard! In fact, at the very least, something tells me that other more pressing matters would be occupying her mind at this stage, like escaping the clutches of her assailant, a man who could be JtR!

Mind you, to be fair that would explain why no one else was remotely aware of this struggle taking place, i.e. Fanny Mortimer, Mrs D. She was obviously more concerned with holding on to the cachous than fighting for her life or crying for help!

[Batman]

In that book Begg didn't favour any suspect all. He actually concluded it didn't matter.

How was Schwartz to know she was holding sweets or not? He doesn't give that level of detail.

[Batman]

Is this a mystery?

A smoker is found dead like Stride after a few beers. Imagine there is a cigarette pack in his hand and some spilled out.

A witness passed by and didn't see the man smoking but saw him being struck by another man a few minutes before his body was found three feet away in a yard through an open gate. So are we to assume that because the witness didn't see him smoking that the witness is wrong about something?

No, because the witness has allowed the freedom for the individual to be able to hold something small in their hands because they didn't notice them carrying anything.

If the witness said the person was holding two bags or a guitar or something in each hand then we might have something to talk about, but it wouldn't be that the person who struck them wasn't likely to be same person who killed them, but why the posing of the cigarettes?

Maybe when she freaked after the first attack BSman tried to calm her down, say he was sorry, offer her a bribe of money and sweets. Maybe she acted like he would go away and she could raise the alarm. There you have another situation where BSman killed her and has explanatory power.

[John G]

In that book Begg didn't favour any suspect all. He actually concluded it didn't matter.

How was Schwartz to know she was holding sweets or not? He doesn't give that level of detail.

Well he certainly recorded a lot of other detail! In fact, if he didn't get a clear look at Stride from the front, which would have meant that, at the very least, he must have seen that she was holding something in her hand, how did he know it was Stride that was assaulted? I mean, it could have been anybody. And what about the multitude of problems with Stride holding on to the cachous, that I referred to in my previous post? And how did this drunken fool not wake up half the neighbourhood, not to say Fanny Mortimer and Mrd D, neither of whom heard a thing? And do you really think that such a person could remotely be JtR? Isn't what Scwartz claimed he witnessed far more consistent with a common domestic dispute?

I think it fair to say that Kosminski was Paul B's favoured suspect, just as Chapman was Sugden's. Quote: "Whether or not ...Kosminski was Jack the Ripper is unknown and will probably always remain so, but it appears that Sir Robert Anderson and...Swanson believed he was. They were there and they were in a position to know." (Begg, 2004)

[John G]

A smoker is found dead like Stride after a few beers. Imagine there is a cigarette pack in his hand and some spilled out.

A witness passed by and didn't see the man smoking but saw him being struck by another man a few minutes before his body was found three feet away in a yard through an open gate. So are we to assume that because the witness didn't see him smoking that the witness is wrong about something?

No, because the witness has allowed the freedom for the individual to be able to hold something small in their hands because they didn't notice them carrying anything.

If the witness said the person was holding two bags or a guitar or something in each hand then we might have something to talk about, but it wouldn't be that the person who struck them wasn't likely to be same person who killed them, but why the posing of the cigarettes?

Maybe when she freaked after the first attack BSman tried to calm her down, say he was sorry, offer her a bribe of money and sweets. Maybe she acted like he would go away and she could raise the alarm. There you have another situation where BSman killed her and has explanatory power.

Maybe he also offered to buy her an ice cream and take her to a trip to the circus as long as she would remain silent and just accompany him into the darkened passage, where he had a nice surprise waiting! Without making a sound, of course!

[lynn cates]

help

Hello Harry. Thanks.

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

Helping out the lads at the club.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

excellent questions

Hello John. Excellent questions.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello (again) John. Thanks for the kind words.

Cheers.
LC

[Dane_F]

This subject of the mints is quite ironic to me. I don't understand why the simple solution of, she was carrying them in her hand, is suppose to be too far out there to be true.

I talked to my cousin last night, who was a Paramedic for over 20 years in a major metro city, just to ask her if she's ever seen people holding onto random objects after they had been killed. She had multiple stories of arriving to murder scenes with people still having a cell phone in their hand. She said one person still had an apple they were eating before being bludgeoned in the back of the head. But the saddest and craziest was a little girl who committed suicide by hanging who still had a bottle of finger nail polish in her hand (the bottle had no significance to anyone).

After hearing these stories I realized having a pack of mints in your hand is actually pretty tame in comparison.

[lynn cates]

simple retort

Hello Dane.

"I don't understand why the simple solution of, she was carrying them in her hand, is suppose to be too far out there to be true."

Simply because IF BSM had thrown her to the ground, it would have dislodged them.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

May have...

Examples galore when this doesn't happen though as per DaneF above.

[John G]

May have...

Examples galore when this doesn't happen though as per DaneF above.

Yes, but something like a flimsy packet of cachous would surely be quite easy to dislodge, even setting aside the fact that Scwartz doesn't mention Stride holding the packet. And as I implied in my earlier post, she would have had to be desperately clinging to them whilst, according to Scwartz's evidence, being spun around and thrown on the footway. And she would still have to be desperately clinging to them whilst BS man breaks of the attack for a moment to shout Lipski; and then whilst he returns to the attack, presumably dragging her into Dutfield's yard, throwing her on the floor again and cutting her throat! Why so attached? I mean, they were just a packet of cachous she was holding, not the Crown Jewels!

[John G]

This subject of the mints is quite ironic to me. I don't understand why the simple solution of, she was carrying them in her hand, is suppose to be too far out there to be true.

I talked to my cousin last night, who was a Paramedic for over 20 years in a major metro city, just to ask her if she's ever seen people holding onto random objects after they had been killed. She had multiple stories of arriving to murder scenes with people still having a cell phone in their hand. She said one person still had an apple they were eating before being bludgeoned in the back of the head. But the saddest and craziest was a little girl who committed suicide by hanging who still had a bottle of finger nail polish in her hand (the bottle had no significance to anyone).

After hearing these stories I realized having a pack of mints in your hand is actually pretty tame in comparison.

Can she give any examples of people desperately hanging on to a flimsy packet whilst being subjected to a direct assault, dragged into the street, spun around, and thrown to the ground; and then subsequently dragged into a yard and thrown to the ground again? And during all of this they manage to avoid spilling most of the contents from the flimsy packet? Oh, and they also make no audible sound to alert the neighbours, including someone sat just a few feet away in a kitchen with the window open!

[c.d.]

How somebody can hold on to something in DEATH is NOT the question. This has NOTHING to do with Liz holding the cachous as she was being killed. The key point is her holding on to them as she was thrown to the ground because the natural reaction is to open your palms to break your fall. She then has to get up and again the natural reaction is to put your weight on your hands to support yourself as you regain your feet. Finally, she was not killed where Schwartz saw her fall. So either she walked voluntarily back into the passage or she was dragged by the B.S. man. It is hard to believe that she went with him voluntarily. Now if she was dragged and she tried to fend him off, again she is most likely going to have her hand open trying to push him away. So the cachous (which were only wrapped in tissue) had to survive all three of these events without spilling. While possible that seems unlikely. So the logical conclusion would seem to be that she did not have the cachous in her hand when thrown down by the B.S. man.

So if you want the B.S. man to have been her killer, and you believe that he threw her down and then proceeded to drag her into the passage and cut her throat immediately after Schwartz left, when did she take out the cachous? I think it is reasonable to conclude that the whole B.S. man encounter was just a common hassle that prostitutes had to put up with and that she took out the cachous after the B.S. man had left and she felt safe.

So please stop giving examples of people holding on to things in death because that is not the point.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Sorry John G. Looks like our posts crossed.

c.d.