The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Batman]

Coroners conclusions - and the injuries inflicted

In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.

Could he be suggesting the killer showed the same injuries inflicted as those on Nichols and Chapman?

Dare I say it but it appears yes.

A big surprise given the very sources we all need say the exact same thing...

... and every time no less.

[Abby Normal]

Why did the couple observed by Mrs Mortimer, just 20 yards away, not see or hear any of this commotion, including the initial assault by BS man and the subsequent shout of Lipski?

I don't know, maybe she was off on her time a bit,They simply weren't paying attention, the noise from singing drowned it out, and general commotion the club indeared desensitized people?

who was it that said-I thought it was just another row from the club?

[Batman]

Just a small point raised some like 50 threads ago...

The scarf had no blood on it.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby.

"IMHO its pointless which direction her body lay."

No, there is a BIG point.

"She could have moved in any direction or fallen in any direction once in the yard, or fallen and tried to get up or turned her body in any direction"

The doctors said she could not have moved (except to draw up her knees) after her throat was cut.

"or if a struggle took place in the yard, they could have turned in any direction during the struggle and /or her killer could have lain her in any direction."

No. No sign of struggle. It was as if her body was "lain gently down."

Cheers.
LC

But then wouldn't that imply that the killer could have lain her down with her feet in any direction?

c.d.

[c.d.]

I think that we have pretty much beaten the cachous question to death but I have to point out for the umpteenth time that the importance of the cachous is not how she could hold them in death but when she took them out.

I think another question that is key is why would the B.S. man go on to kill Liz after being seen by both Schwartz and the Pipeman? A reasonable and prudent person would have to think that there was a good chance that Schwartz had run off to find the nearest P.C.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Why must it be then when she took them out, Jon ?

Given the facts we have to work with, she was probably holding onto them whilst she was standing alone in the gateway.

I`m not sure about how you concluded she was looking away ?

Hi Jon.

I have not seen anything that suggests Stride was holding the cachous when assaulted by BS-man.

When I say "looking away", I envisage Stride pretty well facing the wall when her killer struck, him being behind her, to her right.

[Wickerman]

I think another question that is key is why would the B.S. man go on to kill Liz after being seen by both Schwartz and the Pipeman? A reasonable and prudent person would have to think that there was a good chance that Schwartz had run off to find the nearest P.C.

Exactly!
A prudent question that has never been satisfactorily addressed.

[GUT]

I think another question that is key is why would the B.S. man go on to kill Liz after being seen by both Schwartz and the Pipeman? A reasonable and prudent person would have to think that there was a good chance that Schwartz had run off to find the nearest P.C.

c.d.

It defies logic that someone so careless would also be so careful to avoid detection at other crime scenes.

[J6123]

I think another question that is key is why would the B.S. man go on to kill Liz after being seen by both Schwartz and the Pipeman? A reasonable and prudent person would have to think that there was a good chance that Schwartz had run off to find the nearest P.C.

c.d.

Don't forget this guy butchered and eviscerated a woman in the backyard of a crowded tenement building, possibly in daylight and whilst there was a man standing just over the other side of the fence.

[GUT]

Don't forget this guy butchered and eviscerated a woman in the backyard of a crowded tenement building, possibly in daylight and whilst there was a man standing just over the other side of the fence.

But absolutely no indication anyone had seen him. Whereas if we believe Schwartz he KNEW that he had been seen.

[John G]

Hi John,

If you read on you will see that the inquest asked the doctors to come back to answer the questions.

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

Surely if you are accepting the cachous hypothesis you have read the next sentence involving them which follows the above and says...

Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand. My impression is that the hand gradually relaxed while the woman was dying, she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood.

Recalled, means he was asked back to answer these questions.

The bit underlined is the explanation.

Hi Barman,

I think that it's far easier to explain cachous being spilled inside the yard than outside. The main difficulty for me, on this issue, is that BS man stated, in the police version, that the assault he witnessed was outside the yard, where there is no evidence of any cachous being spilt. And, of course, she would have had to hold on to the packet during the assault and as she hit the footway; and Dr Phillips stated that the jury would be perfectly entitled to infer that the packet would have been dislodged at this point.

[John G]

Another crucial issue for me is the couple referred to by Fanny Mortimer. Now she states that they would have been stood just 20 yards away from where Stride was attacked, which is incredibly close- I mean, an Olympic runner could cover this distance in less than 2 seconds!

Nonetheless, they informed her that they didn't see or hear anything. But they should have seen BS man, Pipeman, Schwartz, and Stride. And how could they possibly have missed the commotion that Schwartz refers to: Stride crying out, albeit not loudly, BS man shouting "Lipski" etc.

Okay, I accept that there inclination may to have been not to get involved but not to notice anything? To my mind it simply defies belief.

[lynn cates]

nub

Hello Harry.

"There's no convincing scenario where Liz would still be holding onto the breath mints if her killer was BS. That would mean she held onto them whilst he roughed her up, dragged her into the yard and slit her throat, or alternatively she willingly went with him after he had just attacked her."

Absolutely. And that is the nub of the matter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

St. Batman

Hello Batman.

"The bit underlined is the explanation."

Explanation of what? Ah, yes, the levitation bit again. Wasn't levitation one of the miracles used to canonise Thomas Aquinas? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

coroner

Hello (again) Batman.

"but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted,"

Meaning a cut throat. Unless, of course, the coroner contradicted himself and she had been mutilated after all.

Now, about that imitator. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC