The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[c.d.]

Hi CD



It would be a natural act.



You misunderstood me, you are more likely to break a wrist by falling on an open hand or palm.

Cheap breath mints to you maybe ... she may have had to sell her body to get hold of them, and perhaps she wanted them for confidence when chatting up men.

Anyway, why drop them in the mud when she probably thought she was only been thrown to the ground.
She probably didn`t think she was going to be murdered.

Well this seems to imply that Liz had knowledge of the best way to position your hands when falling and had time to consider her options before hitting the ground.

The cachous ARE cheap breath mints not diamonds. Yes, I know these women were poor and their possessions probably meant more to them than we can appreciate but are we to believe that as she is being dragged to her death that her thought is to protect the cachous at all costs?

c.d.

[Batman]

Ted Bundy approached or got women to approach by acting incapacitated (he wore casts), sometimes not. In some cases they didn't like the look of him and eventually gave investigators a good photofit, several did actually. Some trusted him. Same killer but different responses from people. This means its wrong to say because Stride saw something odd with the guy means he was too clumsy to be JtR. Stride was simply more attentive than some others, but not enough.

Btw how do we know BSman wasn't already seen trying to pick her up elsewhere and then went back for her. Maybe he bought her the sweets and she thought because she wasn't game for anything else that he was after the sweets back?

Maybe she was even giving them back to him.

[Batman]

Lynn,

The bloodless scarf and blood forensics is resolved at the end on the inquest when all the questions and answers are put together.

Her neck was attacked with a knife while she was lying on the ground, not before.

[lynn cates]

How?

Hello Batman.

"Btw how do we know BSman wasn't already seen trying to pick her up elsewhere and then went back for her. Maybe he bought her the sweets and she thought because she wasn't game for anything else that he was after the sweets back?"

How would he know where to find her?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no answer

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"The bloodless scarf and blood forensics is resolved at the end on the inquest when all the questions and answers are put together."

Which doesn't answer the question I posed. How does your model allow a cut neck and cut scarf to show no blood, but rules out my model on the SAME grounds?

"Her neck was attacked with a knife while she was lying on the ground, not before."

This is mere assertion--a logical fallacy. Liz was NEVER on her back, left side only. And IF her head were lifted up by the scarf, the knot would be tight and to the right--not left.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"Btw how do we know BSman wasn't already seen trying to pick her up elsewhere and then went back for her. Maybe he bought her the sweets and she thought because she wasn't game for anything else that he was after the sweets back?"

How would he know where to find her?

Cheers.
LC

All the witness testimonies describe a very similar man on Berner St., or in close proximity to the street. All you would need to do is walk the street and you would see her standing near the fence. We are talking a very small area here.

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"The bloodless scarf and blood forensics is resolved at the end on the inquest when all the questions and answers are put together."

Which doesn't answer the question I posed. How does your model allow a cut neck and cut scarf to show no blood, but rules out my model on the SAME grounds?

LC

Schwartz's testimony doesn't affect the inquest conclusions because it didn't appear there, however there is good reason to believe from the home office reports that it was kept secret and formed a lead in the Lipski investigation and the arrests of people in connection with the murder of Stride. It was a very large investigation due to volume of home office reports on the matter and all the lead investigators involvement, Swanson+Abberline+White for example all participated in it. The same investigation led White to doubt Packer for example.

The inquest finds that Stride was likely killed by JtR despite Schwartz's non-appearance. So it doesn't even play into it.

As to the models. They are completely different models Lynn. Your knife attack occurs before the victim is lying on the ground. The conclusion says the knife attack occurred after the victim was lying on the ground.

This is because the blood evidence doesn't support an upright or falling knife attack which would display exactly that. Blood on her front. Blood on her side. Blood on the wall. More blood on the scarf etc.

The scarf argument despite its lack of blood was used regularly by the Stride doubters on these forums to say it 'captured' the blood as she was attacked from behind. It should have been obvious to the pathologists if it was used that way, but it was only on further careful examination that they connected the slice in the scarf to her wounds.

Every map I have seen of Berner St., Dutfield's yard and the body position suggest we are talking nothing less than a few feet from where she was seen attacked and where her body was found.

[Batman]

"Her neck was attacked with a knife while she was lying on the ground, not before."

This is mere assertion--a logical fallacy. Liz was NEVER on her back, left side only. And IF her head were lifted up by the scarf, the knot would be tight and to the right--not left.

Cheers.
LC

What you are not revealing though is that the testimony of her position changes between the first person who found her body and the subsequent arrival of other people before law enforcement and a doctor arrived. I have always maintained this was a highly contaminated crime scene with the body messed about with by horse sticks and people's hands. In fact the inquest asks Diemschutz specifically if her whole body or just her head was on the left side. What does he answer? Just the head, not the body.

The reason why we accept that Stride was found on her left side is because as more people see the body it becomes a body that's on its left side and we select it by way of numbers and finally the doctor who saw her - more witnesses saw her on her left side and therefore Diemscutz is wrong.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Diemschutz rolled her more onto her left side than she was with his stick when he prodded her and tried to lift the 'sack' with said stick. That this was what he was trying to convey, or something happened.

What that something is, I believe, is people checking her to see IF she is dead. This happened a lot. Anyway, the lack of blood on the wall, on her front, on the scarf is the same forensic pattern found with JtR.

[John G]

All the witness testimonies describe a very similar man on Berner St., or in close proximity to the street. All you would need to do is walk the street and you would see her standing near the fence. We are talking a very small area here.

I don't think this argument is at all tenable. The Official Report states: "It will be observed that allowing for differences of opinion between the PC Schwartz as to the apparent age and height of the man each saw with the woman whose body they both identified there are serious differences in the description of dress:- thus the PC describes the dress of the man whom he saw as black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, while Schwartz describes the dress of the man he saw as dark jacket black cap with peak, so that at least it is rendered doubtful whether they are describing the same man."


Neither can Schwartz's evidence be easily reconciled with that of William Marshall, as Marshall's suspect had light trousers, whereas BS man is described as having dark trousers.

Moreover, the impression of other witnesses, i.e. Marshall, Best and Gardener and PC Smith, is that the suspects they saw with Stride were respectable dressed, whereas I don't get the impression that there was anything that was very respectable about BS man. In fact, Best and Gardener and Marshall all agree that their suspects didn't look like the type to be kissing and cuddling Stride. I doubt that's remotely the impression Schwartz had of BS man!

Furthermore, Marshall also described a suspect with a mild-mannered voice, sounding like an educated man, and with the appearance of a clerk. Does this really sound remotely like drunken BS man, with his shouts of "Lipski". It is submitted that both in his manner, and in his actions, i.e. the tussle with Stride, he comes across as a complete ruffian; the antithesis of Marshall's man.

And then PC Smith and William Marshall both describe clean shaven suspects, whereas BS man had a moustache.

James Brown's evidence also conflicts with Schwartz. He claimed that he also saw Stride, or someone he believed to be Stride, with a suspect at 12:45- the same time as Schwartz's sighting. Even if he saw a different couple, it doesn't explain why he failed to see or hear the altercation witnessed by Schwartz, or why this other couple failed to notice anything, It also doesn't explain why this other couple failed to come forward, i.e. for elimination purposes, assuming they were not Stride and a suspect.

I would conclude that it is Schwartz's suspect that is difficult to reconcile with suspects described by other witnesses. Clearly they are describing respectably dressed, even educated men. Whereas, in contrast, BS man simply comes across as a drunken lout.

[Batman]

I think the variations are not too dissimilar and what we would expect given nobody expected someone to be murdered. The recall is from memory.

Many arrests where made. How many of those where people Stride met? We don't know. That info is not available.

However just because a witness didn't see him doesn't mean he didn't have some interaction with her prior to attacking her. Like I said, if he bought her the sweets and later she refused his advances, keeping the sweets, that might explain your 'telegraphing' awareness and her bringing out the sweets to give them back. So we have an explanation that involves her taking out sweets during an assault, something you believe wouldn't happen.

Maybe she picked JtRs pocket. Drunks are targets.

Finally, let's really do away with idea that someone who acts like a drunken lout, can't be a serial killer.

Dahmer was a chronic alcoholic throughout his entire life since he was a teen. He got so bad eventually he became extremely disorganized and got caught.

Ted Bundy acted incapacitated to lure victims to their death.

There are scores of examples of serial killers getting liquired up before they murder. Heck drunk people murder people all the time.

[John G]

I think the variations are not too dissimilar and what we would expect given nobody expected someone to be murdered. The recall is from memory.

Many arrests where made. How many of those where people Stride met? We don't know. That info is not available.

However just because a witness didn't see him doesn't mean he didn't have some interaction with her prior to attacking her. Like I said, if he bought her the sweets and later she refused his advances, keeping the sweets, that might explain your 'telegraphing' awareness and her bringing out the sweets to give them back. So we have an explanation that involves her taking out sweets during an assault, something you believe wouldn't happen.

Maybe she picked JtRs pocket. Drunks are targets.

Finally, let's really do away with idea that someone who acts like a drunken lout, can't be a serial killer.

Dahmer was a chronic alcoholic throughout his entire life since he was a teen. He got so bad eventually he became extremely disorganized and got caught.

Ted Bundy acted incapacitated to lure victims to their death.

There are scores of examples of serial killers getting liquired up before they murder. Heck drunk people murder people all the time.

The difficulty is that the other witnesses describe suspects who are the very antithesis of unsubtle BS man. I don't think Stride was killed over a packet of sweets, or if she was, not by JtR. I don't think that BS man attempted to pull Stride into the street because he wanted his sweets back; neither do I think that Stride resisted this attempt because she was reluctant to give the sweets back.

In summary, I don't think that what Schwartz witnessed was a tug of war match over a packet of sweets, resulting in the loser having her throat cut. This seems like a very unlikely proposition to me.

[Batman]

The difficulty is that the other witnesses describe suspects who are the very antithesis of unsubtle BS man. I don't think Stride was killed over a packet of sweets, or if she was, not by JtR. I don't think that BS man attempted to pull Stride into the street because he wanted his sweets back; neither do I think that Stride resisted this attempt because she was reluctant to give the sweets back.

In summary, I don't think that what Schwartz witnessed was a tug of war match over a packet of sweets, resulting in the loser having her throat cut. This seems like a very unlikely proposition to me.

Yes, if it was over that, but that's not the context is it if he is JtR?

In this case JtR lures Stride with something, maybe they had some drinks, hugging kissing, got her sweets and then wanted her to go somewhere and she turned him down and went away. So he follows her around and when she is near somewhere he can strike, he approaches, doing all the telegraphing you mentioned, and she thinks he is just upset over her taking the sweets and not giving him what we wants. So she pulls the sweets out for him, something, to get him off her case.

Another scenario is she stole them from him, he discovered what happened and his JtR dark side took over and he went on a rampage. Again, she is offering him back what she stole.

Is it really so impossible to believe she was trying to hand them back before he killed her. Not really and fits with the sweets in her hand and your telegraphing.

[John G]

Yes, if it was over that, but that's not the context is it if he is JtR?

In this case JtR lures Stride with something, maybe they had some drinks, hugging kissing, got her sweets and then wanted her to go somewhere and she turned him down and went away. So he follows her around and when she is near somewhere he can strike, he approaches, doing all the telegraphing you mentioned, and she thinks he is just upset over her taking the sweets and not giving him what we wants. So she pulls the sweets out for him, something, to get him off her case.

Another scenario is she stole them from him, he discovered what happened and his JtR dark side took over and he went on a rampage. Again, she is offering him back what she stole.

Is it really so impossible to believe she was trying to hand them back before he killed her. Not really and fits with the sweets in her hand and your telegraphing.

As I indicated before, I doubt what Schwartz witnessed was an argument over some stolen sweets. I can't see her making any effort to hold on to the sweets at all, i.e. during the altercation, if she intended to give them back to him anyway. If her killer was biding his time, carefully weighing up his options, waiting for the perfect time and place to strike, I don't think he would have chosen a public place in front of two witnesses. I don't think that BS man was the suspect seen by other witnesses, assuming he existed at all.

[Batman]

If she was suspicious of him before, she can ID him. Not good especially if he lived near.

The point is that to explain the sweets in her hand it is only her perception we need to explain not BSmans intentions.

Did he see Schwartz before he attacked? I think not.

[John G]

If she was suspicious of him before, she can ID him. Not good especially if he lived near.

The point is that to explain the sweets in her hand it is only her perception we need to explain not BSmans intentions.

Did he see Schwartz before he attacked? I think not.

No, we have to explain how she held on to the sweets, and without splitting the packet, during the assault witnessed by Schwartz. We have, of course, discussed this at length in previous posts. If, based upon the scenario you've outlined, she intended to give the sweets back anyway, it makes her holding on to the sweets even more untenable.

If he was following Stride, waiting for the right time to strike, it is inconceivable that he wouldn't have noticed Schwartz and Pipeman, who must have been stood just a few feet away.