Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Diemschutz had a pony not a horse"

Believe it or not, Tom, but a pony IS a horse.

"The pony should have been able to detect Stride by sight AND smell simueltaneously ... and the only time the pony shies is when there happens to be a dead body there. That's a lot of coincidence to swallow"

...which is exactly what I am saying. No killer needed in that yard, by that time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

A couple of quick points. Diemschutz had a pony not a horse. That means it's head would have been maybe a foot from the ground, whereas Diemschutz would have been atop his cart. The pony should have been able to detect Stride by sight AND smell simueltaneously. The fact is, the Dieminator drove that pony in those gates every day and the only time the pony shies is when there happens to be a dead body there. That's a lot of coincidence to swallow. Kinda like the coincidence of a woman being murdered that same hour and brisk jaunt away. Hmmmm....

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Going back a bit, but I'd agree 100% with the view that the behaviour of the broad-shouldered man is consistent with other serial killers. One need only look at Peter Sutcliffe for an example of a serialist capable of both accosting women in a "blitz" style AND enveigling them under a false pretense.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Thank you.Just wanted to be enlightened.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

I thought I was through with the horse business ...

Just one thing on the horses vision, and the bit you heard about never standing in front of or behind the horse: That is due to the fact that the horses eyes are set in such a fashion so as to provide a very large field of vision. The only parts it does not have total visual control over are the parts right in front of them and right behind them.
To some extent, this is what causes horses to suddenly shy away from objects they have been heading towards. Unless they turn their heads, they will not be able to see things very well right in front of them, and if something, a frightened animal or a windswept leaf or something else, moves away from a space right in front of them and out to the side, they suddenly appear almost from nowhere as far as the horse is concerned, and the horse may shy.

Can we get out of the saddles now?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I also do not know how strong or weak is the sight of a horse compared to humans,but more than one human being stated how dark that part of the yard was that night.Now if the smell of blood was so strong to the pony's senses,I would have expected it to have shied and stopped immediately it entered the yard.Sight would then have been immaterial.But it didn't.
That is according to one well known Ripper author.It shied,this author states, citing the evidence of Diemschultz,at the same time as the cart wheel came into contact with some object in it's path.Now the only object that was noticed by Diemschultz,was a dark bundle that was Strides body.So if this is true,and who would doubt such noted author,even if the wheel contacted the feet,it is simple to deduce that the pony's smelling apparatus had failed to detect anything untill the pony's head was some feet past the body,if it detected any smell at all.
I wonder if anyone asked Diemschultz as to his thoughts on why the pony shied.I can find no reference that states they did,and nothing that states he volunteered a reason.Unless the wheel striking the object and the shieing of the pony is to be seen as cause and effect.
One last thing.When young,I was told the following.Never stand ,within arms lenghth,directly in front of a horse,nor within an arms length,directly behind one,a horse was liable to react.One could not stand immediately behind the pony in that yard because of the cart,but in front?

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

I´ve spent a fair number of my days around horses too, and since all the rest of my family (wife and three kids) are VERY enthustiastic riders, I have a feeling that neither me nor my wallet will be able to steer free from them for the next few years...

On the subject itself, my wiew is that the killer was no longer around when Diemschutz arrived. But your guess carries just as much value, of course, there is little use denying that.
Be that as it may, I think that IF he was there, he would have been hiding quite some distance from the body, in the inner parts of the yard. If he decided on letting the body lie and go into hiding, the approaching sound of the horse and carriage must have allowed him ample time to get out of the passageway itself, and therefore I do not think that nor sight or smell of him was what stirred the horse. Moreover, since there was a stable and a vivacious club around, I think that situations where the horse was faced with people moving about in that yard would have been quite common to it. If there had not been a blood-smelling body lying around in the exact direction from which the horse shied, I would have been more inclined to accept that the shying could have been the result of the killer moving within the yard. As it stands, that notion must be quite secondary to that of the body causing it all.

In the end, it is perhaps time to listen to an old proverb, though: No sense flogging a dead horse ...

The very best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I'm not disagreeing that smells can set off a trained horse, just that it isn't usual. Objects that they detect are much more likely to do so if they are unfamiliar with them. They have a natural propensity not to tread on human beings as well, though they will certainly kick and bite them if they are nervous. My suggestion that it knew there was a body there had to do with the smell of the body and its location that was too near its path of travel.
The argument also includes the possibility of the proximity of the murderer in the darkness who may also have been too close to its path. The horse would have known by the smell of the killer, where exactly he was and blood wouldn't have been a part of that, probably. If the horse could see the shininess of the blood in any available dim light, that is another story.

Getting back to the street smart pony, I suggest that it would not have been the skittish type with regards to odd smells or even things it could see. I believe it smelled the body, or the killer, knew it or they were in its path, and so the knowledge of a human being who it couldn't see was what scared it.

These are just my opions. Again, I spent maybe 17 years with horses, feeding them and walking them every day and riding them maybe once a week, or when I could. These observations are based upon my small body of knowledge of a few ponies and several horses.

I don't think the argument really matters save for the possibility that the killer was still there, which can hardly be argued against, as it's unknown.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

"Blood can set off a rare few horses, but typically not, and certainly not a cart pony in the worst part of London. "

You just won´t give in, will you, Mike? "A rare few horses"... Horses, and indeed very many other species of animals, are born with a natural instinct to shy away from the smell of blood. Korean-based Ripperologists, however, are not.

It is interesting, Mike, that you persistently state that a "street-wise" pony would not shy away from blood, since it was an everyday phenomenon to it. Yet you think that a body on the ground would scare it.
Why? Would the horse not be accustomed to drunk people lying in the gutters and in the streets, people sleeping rough wherever they could find space for it? Tarpaulins lying around in the yards?

The combination of a body in the darkness of a place where there was normally nothing, combined with the very apparent smell of blood - that, Mike, would have been quite enough to unnerve the horse. And we have Diemschitz´words that this was exactly what happened, making the horse shy to his left.

The best!
Fisherman

[sdreid]

If Stride was truly thrown to the pavement, I've always wondered why her hands or whatever weren't skinned up. I mean, can we really believe anything that Schwartz says?

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

Of course it was the body. If the pony didn't see it, it certainly had the capacity smell it in its path, and that was what set it off. Blood can set off a rare few horses, but typically not, and certainly not a cart pony in the worst part of London. Obstacles, of course do that to most horses.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi all,

Sorry If I mistook some comments, but has it been seriously suggested that the pony shied from blood? Since Louis had to light a match to even be sure it was a dead body, and it is described as being in the darkest spot in the yard, I would think the scent of blood may have alerted the pony, but the shadowy object was what caused it to shy. She is on her left side,...her feet and butt are towards the gates/pony, ankle length skirt, black evening jacket. She would have been a dark thing that smelled like blood....but no-one saw any "blood" unaided by light.

Cheers all.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Generally, you disregard my findings on principal."

Tom, this puts me in an awkward spot, since if i say "yes, I do" I make you right, whereas if I say "no, I don´t" i will make you right anyway. Sort of.

The fact of the matter, Tom is that I hold you high in regard as a Ripper researcher. When it comes to your talent for taking criticizm and exchanging with people, however, I am not as fond of you. But I am prepared to take the bad things with the good ones at most opportunities. Most, that is.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

I was just surprised to see you adopting what I believe is the true spelling of his name. Generally, you disregard my findings on principal. I still call him Diemschutz to avoid confusion and distraction.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Tom's right, Fisherman - it's "ДЫМШИЦ"