The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Jon Guy]

Hi John

Yes, but in the Star version he subsequently hears the sound of a quarrel, suggesting to me that this was some kind of domestic dispute.?

It may have been. Remember BS Man is almost identical with Marshall`s man, whom she was seen with earlier that night.

Or, maybe they exchanged words which led to the confrontation. These girls were no shrinking violets.

The difficulty is, why didn't Stride get up and try and escape??

I think the bruising on her shoulders may explain this.

Why does BS man start arguing with her at this point if his intention is to cut her throat? ?

Was it his intention to cut her throat ?
Perhaps she just insulted Jack the Ripper as he was walking by ;-)
The result being a cut throat, and maybe explains why no attempt at mutilations

And if they're arguing inside the gate that creates another problem as Mrs D may have been close by in the kitchen with the window open (although clearly she must have moved to the front room some time later). Why does she not hear the quarrel? I mean, Schwartz heard it as he was walking away so it must have been quite loud. ?

Schwartz would have been 2ft to 10ft away from them and visibly aware of the altercation.
Obviously, it was not loud enough for people in the cottages, or Mrs D to hear, and there were other sounds emanating from the club at the time

And doesn't the Star version imply Pipman was some kind of accomplice, shouting out a warning to BS man?

This was addressed by Abberline or Swanson at the time. They concluded that "Lipski" was probably directed towards Schwartz because of his strong Jewish appearance, although Schwartz admitted to them he didn`t know if it was directed at him or pipeman.

[lynn cates]

contrast

Hello John. Thanks.

"Contrast that with BS man."

Yes, HUGE contrast.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

But, most definitely, they will NOT be levitated upward from palm to thumb. Nor will they move into a sudden gap between thumb and finger, only to close around them again.

They were described as lodged and were out of view, Lynn, so they definitely were not pinched as you describe, between her thumb and finger, as they would have been clearly visible.

She`s obviously held them tightly in her hand and as she`s been thrown about and to the ground, death ensuing, resulting in how they were found, and not pinched between her finger and thumb.

The cachous mean nothing anyway. She was holding them when killed. Whatever problems this causes for people.
Simples.

[Jon Guy]

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.

We`d be in the land of Hutch if Schwartz noted that detail, Jon.

[lynn cates]

J I ?

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Neck slashing > cut throat."

Well, neck slashing IS a cut throat. What are you driving at?

"Forensic awareness of arterial spray."

Pure, groundless speculation.

"Which means your suspect, who is being detained at this time, now has the perfect alibi - namely law enforcement when the crime was committed."

Isenschmid had NOTHING to do with Liz.

"There are alibi's and then there are perfect ones. Doesn't get much better than that for him."

Time for a reality check. No one EVER claimed Isenschmid killed Liz. You are sniffing up the wrong trouser leg.

"I can see why you are concerned very much with Stride as you need the inquest to be wrong in order for your suspect to make sense, which as pointed out before, involving a delusional butcher thinking he is butchering an animal, seems unlikely as he needs to suddenly snap out of it at the right moment and make an escape."

This is puerile. Isenschmid is a non-starter here.

Once again, you need to get your facts straight--or must we go through his "Jewishness" again? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

facts

Hello Jon.

"Absolutely, Nichols and Chapman both had their throats cut in completely different ways (but still obviously the same killer)."

Oh dear. One post with misinformation like this and all GENUINE researchers get confused.

The FACTS, man! The facts!!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

more misinformation

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

No, they were between thumb and forefinger.

Clearly seen? Try lying on your left side, arm extended from elbow whilst you lie on the portion next the humerus. Now have someone stand just behind you. Is it easy to see your hand?

Please stop posting misinformation. It's bad for the new, young researchers.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon.

"Absolutely, Nichols and Chapman both had their throats cut in completely different ways (but still obviously the same killer)."

Oh dear. One post with misinformation like this and all GENUINE researchers get confused.

The FACTS, man! The facts!!

Cheers.
LC

Oh dear, Lynn. You are rude, ignorant and worst of all WRONG

As I`m in a good mood I`ll help you.

Chapman: The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand.

Just like Mary Kelly`s wound, the killer had cut completely around the neck.


Nichols: On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed.

Here we have two cuts to the throat

[Batman]

Well, neck slashing IS a cut throat. What are you driving at?

No it is not. The throat is a part of the neck, not the neck.

In the same way veins in your wrist are not the wrist, just part of it.

A slashed wrist is not a nearly severed hand.

JtR did not cut throats, he slashed necks. Throat cutting related attacks happened in London all the time. Neck slashing is rare. That is what Stride experienced, not this cut throat myth.

"Forensic awareness of arterial spray."

Pure, groundless speculation.

Yes I know you reject the closing comments of the inquest.

"Which means your suspect, who is being detained at this time, now has the perfect alibi - namely law enforcement when the crime was committed."

Isenschmid had NOTHING to do with Liz.

Correct and nothing to do with Nichols and therefore Chapman either by default of the perfect witness he has.

"There are alibi's and then there are perfect ones. Doesn't get much better than that for him."

Time for a reality check. No one EVER claimed Isenschmid killed Liz. You are sniffing up the wrong trouser leg.

Now your just making me laugh. You know as well as everyone else reading this board that if Stride was killed by the same person who killed Nichols and Chapman, your Isenschmid suspect is Scott free of being their killer.

"I can see why you are concerned very much with Stride as you need the inquest to be wrong in order for your suspect to make sense, which as pointed out before, involving a delusional butcher thinking he is butchering an animal, seems unlikely as he needs to suddenly snap out of it at the right moment and make an escape."

This is puerile. Isenschmid is a non-starter here.

Glad your coming to your senses.

Once again, you need to get your facts straight--or must we go through his "Jewishness" again? (heh-heh)

You seem to have me confused with someone who doesn't change opinion based on the facts, which I shall do.

Apparently the thought though of holding something and releasing your baby finger, ring finger, middle finger while relaxing is impossible for Stride to have done with her sweets for you. You have her really rendered completely doll like in flexibility from start to finish.

How many fights do you think a woman like this experience in her life?

1?

[Jon Guy]

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

No, they were between thumb and forefinger.

Clearly seen? Try lying on your left side, arm extended from elbow whilst you lie on the portion next the humerus. Now have someone stand just behind you. Is it easy to see your hand?

Please stop posting misinformation. It's bad for the new, young researchers.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn

Why not use the actual words of the investigators of the time, like a genuine researcher. It`s actually easier to cut and paste their actual words you know?

Here`s Blackwell (he was a doctor who actually attended the scene of the murder) : The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view.

Not pinched, like she was about to use a slot machine, as you invented.

[Dane_F]

Having read through the past 20 or so pages, it seems there are no more arguments against the GSG -- you know the actual topic of this thread -- since everyone seems to have moved on to who is a suspect if someone has/doesn't have mints in their closed/opened hand.

I'm glad we can finally at least put that to rest.

[lynn cates]

ciao

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Actually, I need none of your help. Nor do I need your misinformed posts. I was a nice chap and tried to make nice with you--at YOUR request. That was my one mistake.

No more posts.

By the way, you need to go do some research. But, as you're likely busy hawking something, I doubt that gets done.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

research

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Here's the bet. Allow your neck to be slashed (no, not nicked by a razor--well and truly slashed). If your throat is not cut, you can come see me and get a handshake. Fair enough?

Laugh? No, I'm laughing because once again you have put your foot firmly in your mouth.

"Apparently the thought though of holding something and releasing your baby finger, ring finger, middle finger while relaxing is impossible for Stride to have done with her sweets for you."

They were not there--they were between thumb and forefinger.

Think you'd better go help Jon Simons learn to do research. You two could use some.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inevitable

Hello Dane. I know what you mean. But, as one of our lads is fixated with anti-Semitism, and considers Liz's killing involved with that, I suppose it was inevitable.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hi Jon,

I think that your argument is dependant on too many assumptions. Firstly, we would have to reject the official police report in favour if the press version-or at least selective parts of the press version.

Secondly, it assumes, presumably, that she had the cachous in her hand at the time Schwartz was present, even though this is something Schwartz make no mention of.

Thirdly, it assumes that the precariously held cachous were not dislodged by the assault, even though she was pushed with enough force to end up on her back, presumably. Dr Phillips seems to be of the opinion that being thrown down on the footway would have dislodged the cachous, I therefore have no reason to doubt that being pushed forcefully into the passage would have had any other likely result.

Fourthly, it assumes that JtR was having some sort of serial killers' vacation, or break from serial murders and eviscerations. Thus, having seen off Scwartz, instead of slitting Stride's throat he decides to go back and have an argument with her instead, no doubt berating her for having the audacity to disturb his serial killers' holiday.

Fifthly, if he wasn't intending to mutilate anyone that night, who killed Kate Eddowes?

Sixthly, you assume that Mrs D wouldn't have heard anything from maybe a few feet/yards away, even though Schwartz did hear the quarrel whilst walking away.

Seventhly, it means accepting that the couple referred to by Mortimer didn't hear or see anything, i.e the sound of the quarrel, even though they were stood only about 20 yards away.

Eigthly, It means rejecting the part of the newspaper report, which refers to Pipeman acting as an accomplice and rushing at Scwartz with a knife.

Ninethly, it assumes that Stride made no attemot to get up, or flea, because of "bruising on her shoulders"!

I have to say it all seems somewhat unlikely to me. I mean, if we were to apply the same degree of selectivity to reports of George Hutchinson's evidence I'm sure he could be converted into a first class witness!