The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[c.d.]

Hi CD
I don't think any murder detective would think it was a big assumption, let alone a very big one, that a man seen assaulting the victim shortly before her dead body was found was her killer.

On the contrary, I would think that that man would most likely be her killer.
Don't you?

Hello Abby,

If the B.S. man was her killer, then the interruption by Schwartz had no effect on his plans. I could see his wrath and a subsequent message railing against Jews being more likely if Schwartz had thwarted his plans.

c.d.

P.S. No, I don't think the B.S. man killed Liz. I think somebody came along after he had left.

[John G]

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.

Hello c.d,

Excellent post, and argued much more methodically than my previous post.

[lynn cates]

precarious

Hello John.

"but something like a flimsy packet of cachous would surely be quite easy to dislodge"

Quite. Not to mention it was held precariously between thumb and forefinger, NOT the fist.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

matter of time

Hello CD. Precisely.

Now, care to take bets on how long it is before someone gives another story of one who clutched an object in death?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Precisely.

Now, care to take bets on how long it is before someone gives another story of one who clutched an object in death?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Exactly. That is why this whole point becomes so frustrating to try to explain.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello John.

"but something like a flimsy packet of cachous would surely be quite easy to dislodge"

Quite. Not to mention it was held precariously between thumb and forefinger, NOT the fist.

Cheers.
LC

Good point, Lynn. If she held on to them by keeping them in her fist then this "vicious assault" would have resulted in a broken hand or at the very least discernible swelling and bruising evident in the autopsy.

c.d.

[Batman]

Sorry but why couldn't she have made a run for the gate and club door that is a few seconds away? Schwartz witnessed a struggle not the murder.

Lastly the body was disturbed by several people at several different times. She was even prodded with a stick and an attempt was made to shift this bag with it. So an object is barely held within her hand... What's the big deal? What's the mystery? The investigation had no problem with it.

[Batman]

this was a highly contaminated crime scene remember?

1. Louis Diemschutz pony shied next the body.
2. Louis Diemschutz prodded the body with his stick.
3. Louis Diemschutz tried to lift the body (which he thought was a sack) with the same stick.
4. People where all over the murder scene messing up footprints with theirs.
5. Edward Spooner was tilting her head around and back and eventually could see the terrible deep gash on ner neck.
6. PC Lamb then proceeds to check the body.

All before the first doctor arrived.

[John G]

Sorry but why couldn't she have made a run for the gate and club door that is a few seconds away? Schwartz witnessed a struggle not the murder.

Lastly the body was disturbed by several people at several different times. She was even prodded with a stick and an attempt was made to shift this bag with it. So an object is barely held within her hand... What's the big deal? What's the mystery? The investigation had no problem with it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I mean, why would she run into a narrow passage cloaked in pitch black darkness? So dark in fact that Lave couldn't even see the side door to get back in. I would have thought that would have been the very last thing she would have done, unless, of course, she was completely crazy.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. You do realize that the cachous were precariously held between thumb and forefinger, as Lynn succinctly points out, and therefore not gripped tightly? You do realize that the "packet" they were held in was just a flimsy bit of tissue? And yet, you insist that she could have valiantly held on to the cachous, as if they were some precious object, throughout repeated assaults by BS man: being pulled into the street, being spun round, being thrown to the footway. And then. after Scwartz left, possibly being dragged, or at least forced, into Dutfield's Yard and then forced to the ground again. I mean, me thinks she was hardly going to go into a pitch-black dark narrow passage voluntarily with a man who had just assaulted her!

And throughout all of this she avoids spilling the contents from the flimsy bit of tissue. In fact, the only evidence of any contents being spilled was explained by Dr Blackwell as probably being the result if his removal of the packet from her hand.

Time to abandon this hopeless suspect, me thinks.

[Batman]

Since the body was disturbed you can't say that is how they where in her hand at all before the disturbance.

Anyway the investigation didn't perceive how she held the sweets to be in any way significant at all.

[Batman]

Is the alternative conspiracy theory viable?

Here is what the conspiracy theory requires because Schwartz claims to have a legit reason for being there - It's on his way home nearby.

- The conspiracy requires Schwartz to have a good reason to be there.
- In this case he is moving house. So that's two houses we need to show he is occupying.
- His wife needs to backup his story about moving.
- He needs to place himself elsewhere in town before returning along Berner St.

So we at least need those factors or incompetent officers. So it has to have been planned or they are lucky enough to find Schwartz AFTER to tell this story.

The complexity required for the conspiracy theory escalates very quickly, even before we begin asking about who else was involved.

I guess where people find a dead person holding onto something in an assault a no-go, then this will always be a mystery to them. For the contemporary and people who investigate things like this on a day to day basis, it happens and they don't infer a conspiracy from it.

By the way, Lynn's model has her holding the sweets as she is being assaulted too. Its just his special method allows it be retained exactly as described by the investigators.

[c.d.]

Since the body was disturbed you can't say that is how they where in her hand at all before the disturbance.

Anyway the investigation didn't perceive how she held the sweets to be in any way significant at all.

We have no way of knowing how the detectives conducted their investigation or what factors they took into consideration or what they considered significant. They might simply have missed the significance of the cachous. Swanson's report does mention the possibility of Stride being killed by someone who came along after the B.S. man had left. The cachous support that possibility.

c.d.

[Batman]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I mean, why would she run into a narrow passage cloaked in pitch black darkness? So dark in fact that Lave couldn't even see the side door to get back in. I would have thought that would have been the very last thing she would have done, unless, of course, she was completely crazy.

Depends on how well she knew this place. Some people have no problem bringing a horse and cart up there. As for crazy. No, just completely shocked. People run into dead ends all the time. How do you think the police catch them on foot sometimes? Again, why create barriers where there are none. Its a few feet away through an open gate. No pole vaulting needed. No lock breaking. Heck a drunk could stumble in there and do it.

The fact is there could be several different events that incorporate BSMAN in all of these things without a need for Schwartz to be in a conspiracy with someone else.

[John G]

Hi Lynn,

Exactly. That is why this whole point becomes so frustrating to try to explain.

c.d.

Hello c.d,

I believe that either her assailant followed her into the Yard, if we assume she was going to the side door with the intention of meeting someone, or managed to lure into the Yard; there is some evidence that it was used for the purposes of solicitation, despite the clubs protestations to the contrary: local resident Barnett Kentorrich opined: " I do not think that the yard bears a good character at night."

If the latter is true, I would speculate that Stride entered the yard, merrily eating the cachous, so that her breath would smell nice for the client, completely oblivious of the fate that awaited her. However, perhaps something about the man she was with disturbed her, Maybe she sensed his presence looming behind her as he was poised to strike. Perhaps this reinforced earlier misgivings she may have had: the evidence of Brown, Marshall, and PC smith indicates that she may have been with her assailant for some time.

If she did have misgivings, her instinct would probably have been to head for the exit, as the yard was a cul de sac. Her assailant was possibly caught off guard initially, and we should remember that the yard was cloaked in near pitch black darkness, so he may have been struggling to even see his intended victim. However, I would speculate that he quickly recovered the initiative and either reached out for her scarf, propelling her back into the yard towards him, or simply caught hold of her from behind, quickly pulling her to the ground and slitting her throat.

[Batman]

Swanson's report does mention the possibility of Stride being killed by someone who came along after the B.S. man had left. The cachous support that possibility.

c.d.

Swanson brings up the idea of a second killer to dismiss it based on the facts. That's why he mentioned it. He doesn't invoke anything about sweets to make that claim either.

What is stopping JtR who poses his victims from jamming something into her hand? Nothing. There are many variations involving BSman that don't require an additional murderer.

I think at the end of the day the problem is and never was with the sweets.

Its the fact we have a witness being called a racial slur. Lipski. Then anti-Semitic graffiti (as per this thread) and trying to make it all go away as coincidence.

This is quite a suitable position for those who accept a Jewish killer. I just think its omitting facts to fit a suspect ... and isn't that the big no no?