Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Fisherman]

Hi Dusty!

Well, to begin with, you must consider that this post of mine was an effort to please Caz, coming up with a small shred of something that may (and- as always - may not) go to imply something that could speak for the killer not being Jack. So I must ask you to cut me some slack here! In the post before that, I wrote that we all know that there is no such thing as hard evidence proving another killer, so I think we are agreed to a large extent.

Now, you write:

"Based on the evidence, you can’t make an authoritative statement like that that. The wound was equally consistant with the “main pressure being applied” to centre of the neck."

...and that, of course, carries sense with it. But what I meant was that it is obvious that the left side was the object of more pressure on the blade than the right one. What I did was to point out that the wound lends itself to a scenario with a right-handed killer standing behind Stride, whereas it does not lend itself to a left-handed ditto.
I also mean that the cut is carried "around" the neck to such an extent, that it could hardly have been inflicted by wielding the knife from the front of her as she was standing up.
Therefore we are left with two main possibilities (and correct me if I am wrong here):
1. She was cut lying down.
2. She was cut falling, by someone who stood behind her.

One thing that speaks against the former possibility, I feel, is that she was found with mud on the left side of her face and with her jacket plastered with mud on the same side. If she had been lying on her back, the back of her head and the back of her jacket would have had all that mud on them, and I see no reports on that being the case. Also, if she was lying on her back when cut, I think that the blood would have spurted out from her severed left artery and ended up some way from the body, the exact same way that Chapmans blood ended up on the fence alongside her when she was cut lying on her back.
He may of course have cut and tilted her, but that does not explain why the mud on her face was predominantly positioned on the left part of her face, does it? That would seem to imply that she ended up on her side from the outset as she landed on the ground. And if she did, and was cut lying thus, it would have been awkward to reach in under her neck to commence the cut, would it not?

Next up:
"This scenario has some problems:
-In strangling cases the hands go to throat as a protective reflex."

Okay! To begin with, there was no evidence to prove that Stride WAS a case of strangulation, was there? And even if there had been, what do you feel proves that her hands did not at some point travel to the neck?
My guess is that she was indeed pulled off balance, and that the credible thing to do would not be to reach for the throat, but to try to fend off the fall.

Moving on:
"Several bio mechanical problems occur with your scenario:
Cutting the throat whilst the victim is falling backwards gives, the would be murderer, very little purchase. They would be trying to insert the blade at the same time as the victim is falling away from the knife.
The hand reflex to the throat would prevent access to the intended cutting area further complicating any attempt to cut the throat.
Blood splatter would be concentrated on the clothing, chin and nearby wall.
All these areas were reported as being blood free."

My suggestion is that if she was indeed cut when falling, then she would have been cut rather close to the ground. And as that would have involved the killer causing a slight rotation of the body to the left to avoid having her falling over him, I think that even if there was a jet of blood from that neck, it may well have been directed straight down on the ground, ending up under her neck as she fell - it would have been the first contribution to the pool formed under her neck. And, of course, that jet pulse is the result of the heartbeat, so there is every chance that id did not spurt out until she was down, given the fact that travelling the last few decimetres towards the ground does not take long.
The "insertion" of the blade you speak of craves no time at all, if you put the blade to the neck as the victim falls; you just let your hand holding the knife accompany her on the way down, and when the weight of the falling body is there, you draw the blade across the neck, retracting your hand. She wouldn´t have fallen away from the knife, she would have rotated to her left, and if the killer used the blade against her neck during the combined rotation and fall, she would actually have applied more of her own weight to the blade the closer to the ground she came.
The "hand reflex to the throat" that you speak of need not, as I have already mentioned, ever have been there, since there need not have been any strangulation at all involved - just the pull to get her off balance.

Lastly, yes, Dr Phillips was indeed there. And he read the evidence in his way. But Dr Blackwell was also there, furnishing us with the one and only "Ripper" case where there is a clear possibility that the victim was NOT on the ground when cut. And, of course, providing anybody who feels that she may have been cut during her fall with just as much of a medical opinion to throw forward, as those who rely in Phillips come by.
Also, the assertion that Phillips "knew what he was talking about" amounted to an assertion that we were dealing with somebody with medical expertise, in Annie Chapmans case. And many a scholar would use that to suggest that Phillips did not know what he was talking about - in that case, at least.

My sentiments, of course, Dusty. And heartbreakingly unverifiable. But an obvious possibility, the way I look upon it, and something it will be equally hard to disprove, given the evidence involved.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

I must ask you to cut me some slack here!

Fair enough.

What I did was to point out that the wound lends itself to a scenario with a right-handed killer standing behind Stride, whereas it does not lend itself to a left-handed ditto.

I can't see a scientific difference between the two, in terms of the mechanics of the cut. Equally someone on the right side of the victim would put more pressure left than right. Also important is how the knife was held, blade up, blade down, like a pen as a surgeon would. No, don't go there!


... the cut is carried "around" the neck to such an extent, that it could hardly have been inflicted by wielding the knife from the front of her as she was standing up.

Or from the back. The blood splatter pattern (or in this case, lack of) almost certainly preludes both scenarios, as both doctors at the scene agreed.


Therefore we are left with two main possibilities (and correct me if I am wrong here):
1. She was cut lying down.
2. She was cut falling, by someone who stood behind her.

All the evidence indicates the unfortunate Elizabeth Stride was on the ground, laying on her left side, her face away from the initial cut and the action was carried out by someone directly to her right who knew what they doing, as noted by Dr Phillips.

Given an unusual set of circumstances, it is possible that she was killed whilst falling but conversely, given unusual set of circumstances, it is possible that she was killed whilst standing.

Given the choice of evidence that is *entirely* consistent with death whilst on the ground, why go with inconsistent alternatives?


... If she had been lying on her back, the back of her head and the back of her jacket would have had all that mud on them

Agreed.

… she ended up on her side from the outset as she landed on the ground.

Agreed.

And if she did, and was cut lying thus, it would have been awkward to reach in under her neck to commence the cut, would it not?

Murder generally *is* awkward. I suspect most people would say trying to slice the throat of a falling person is awkward.

Awkward isn’t a problem.



...what do you feel proves that her hands did not at some point travel to the neck?

Cachous.

Given the choice between trying to grab a knife whilst being dragged backwards by the neck in an extremely violent manner or holding on to a bag of sweets, which would you chose?

My guess is that she was indeed pulled off balance, and that the credible thing to do would not be to reach for the throat, but to try to fend off the fall.

And yet we know she did neither because she was found clutching a bag of cachous.

My suggestion is that if she was indeed cut when falling, then she would have been cut rather close to the ground.

Not physically possible I’m afraid; we’re back to biomechanics.
In this scenario, unless the victim fell on top of the killer, the murder would be above, in front, or to the side.

… if you put the blade to the neck as the victim falls; you just let your hand holding the knife accompany her on the way down ……
….. since there need not have been any strangulation at all involved - just the pull to get her off balance.

Try it.
You can’t pull someone off balance all the way to the ground, hold a knife to their throat at the same time and remain behind them. Somethings got to give!

Lastly, yes, Dr Phillips was indeed there. And he read the evidence in his way. But Dr Blackwell was also there, furnishing us with the one and only "Ripper" case where there is a clear possibility that the victim was NOT on the ground when cut.

But he didn't!

Dr Blackwell said he had *no idea* at what stage the throat was cut. He couldn't even say whether the victim was killed standing up or not. The only opinion he ventured was that the victim was pulled down by the scarf. He later revised that when recalled to the inquest, agreeing with Phillips about the marks on the shoulders.
Add to that his messing up over the cachous and we get a picture of a man all over the place.

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Good Lord, Dusty; this will take me all evening to answer…!

Oh, well!

“I can't see a scientific difference between the two, in terms of the mechanics of the cut. Equally someone on the right side of the victim would put more pressure left than right. Also important is how the knife was held, blade up, blade down, like a pen as a surgeon would. No, don't go there!”

Don´t go there? Already been there, Dusty – and I make it an issue to return often. To my mind, it is obvous that the factors surrounding Strides death are so different from the other cases, that I have long felt assured that she was not one of Jack´s. And that calls for closer looks!

“... the cut is carried "around" the neck to such an extent, that it could hardly have been inflicted by wielding the knife from the front of her as she was standing up.

Or from the back. The blood splatter pattern (or in this case, lack of) almost certainly preludes both scenarios, as both doctors at the scene agreed.”

Nope, Dusty. They did not. Here´s Blackwell for you:
“I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting the throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up.”

So, in fact, Blackwell was everything but opposed to a scenario with Stride being cut during her fall – by a killer posed behind her, pulling her backwards by her scarf.

This of course also has bearing on your next passage:
“All the evidence indicates the unfortunate Elizabeth Stride was on the ground, laying on her left side, her face away from the initial cut and the action was carried out by someone directly to her right who knew what they doing, as noted by Dr Phillips.
Given an unusual set of circumstances, it is possible that she was killed whilst falling but conversely, given unusual set of circumstances, it is possible that she was killed whilst standing.
Given the choice of evidence that is *entirely* consistent with death whilst on the ground, why go with inconsistent alternatives?”

I have all the consistency I need in Blackwells words. If you are looking for consistency with the other canonicals, I think I must advice you to be careful. There is nothing in the striking method evinced that points to Jack, but for a cut in the neck – which in itself was very different from the cuts he inflicted. So skip that sort of consistency demands, if they are what you are thinking of, and treat the Stride killing as a one-off. It proves a lot more useful, I find.
And really, the consistency we are looking for in this isolated case, is consistency with a type of cut resulting in her ending up on the left side and producing no blood spurting that can give a clue. And such a consistency is there in both the cut-when-lying-down-scenario and the cut-while-falling-scenario.

Next:
“it would have been awkward to reach in under her neck to commence the cut, would it not?
Murder generally *is* awkward. I suspect most people would say trying to slice the throat of a falling person is awkward.

Awkward isn’t a problem.”

Yes it is, Dusty, at least the way I see it. Why would the killer accept an awkward angle or a difficult cut? And that would have faced him if he tried to cut her lying down on her left side. She was quite close to the wall, remember, meaning that he would have to lean in over her and shove the knife in between the ground and her neck, thereafter cutting by retracting the knife. Such a movement, regardless of which way you choose to hold the knife, would mean that it would be very difficult to carry the cut round the neck, all the way to under her right jaw-bone. And if you look at her mortuary photograph, you will see that the cut travelled a fair way up the right side of her neck.
It is a cut that would be hard to manage, and I fail to see why he should put all the effort into those last few inches that would be needed. To facilitate it, he would have to either lift her head by the hair, or, better still, kneel by the top of her head, instead of to the right of her.
And yes, he could have done so. But if we are to accept either of these positions, we are still faced with an almighty problem. Or two, to be exact.

The first one is best explained by mrs Diemschutz:
“I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing had there been any. In the yard itself all was silent as the grave.” And the side door of the club had been half open, something that would have ensured that a scream from Stride would not have gone unheard. But there was none. Why?

Next; the cachous. If he wrestled her to the ground, after which he pulled out her knife, steadied her and got ready to cut, then why would she hold on to that packet throughout it all? It is totally unprobable, I think.

So what do we need to find the consistency with the evinced scenery of the yard that you are looking for?
We need a swift kill, so swift that she never had the time to cry out, and so swift that her left hand cramped around the cachous as the blade cut through her artery. Nothing less will do, unless we can come up with credible explanations to these phenomenons.

You approach the issue:
“My guess is that she was indeed pulled off balance, and that the credible thing to do would not be to reach for the throat, but to try to fend off the fall.

And yet we know she did neither because she was found clutching a bag of cachous.”

There have been many a poster telling us of people who have held on to things during a fall, such as bottles, glasses and so on. And they have held on to them throughout the whole fall. In Strides case, we only have to accept that she held on to them as the fall commenced. After that, the cut clenched it – so to speak!

After that:
“Not physically possible I’m afraid; we’re back to biomechanics.
In this scenario, unless the victim fell on top of the killer, the murder would be above, in front, or to the side.
… if you put the blade to the neck as the victim falls; you just let your hand holding the knife accompany her on the way down ……
….. since there need not have been any strangulation at all involved - just the pull to get her off balance.
Try it.
You can’t pull someone off balance all the way to the ground, hold a knife to their throat at the same time and remain behind them. Somethings got to give!”

No question you are absolutely right on this point! It´s just that you do not describe what I am after. "My" guy stretches his left hand out and grabs Liz from behind by the scarf as she is leaving, heading for the gates. He then pulls her backwards, off balance, still holding on to the scarf. He raises his right hand and attaches the blade to Strides throat as she falls. Now, he of course does not allow her to fall onto him. Instead, he brings her body into a rotation to the left, using his grip on the scarf. As he does so, he stretches his left forearm out from his body, allowing her to pass him to the left, and still in a rotating movement. The cut is inflicted during this passage, and the rotation helps explain both why the cut reaches all around her neck, and why it is shallow on the right hand side of the neck. If you imagine how a bullfighter uses his cape as the bull flies by him, you will pretty much get the idea.

And on we go:

“Dr Blackwell said he had *no idea* at what stage the throat was cut. He couldn't even say whether the victim was killed standing up or not. The only opinion he ventured was that the victim was pulled down by the scarf. He later revised that when recalled to the inquest, agreeing with Phillips about the marks on the shoulders.
Add to that his messing up over the cachous and we get a picture of a man all over the place.”

Aren´t you being a bit unfair to Blackwell here? This is what he said when he was recalled to the inquest on the 5th of October:
“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.”

Dr Phillips, in fact, was the one who got it all mixed up, and who thought that he had himself removed the cahous. Blackwell felt that he needed to put it right, and did so. So the messing up was on Phillips behalf, Dusty – not on Blackwells!
And not saying what you cannot substantiate is always wise tactics. My guess is that Phillips very much wanted to see the Stride killing as another Ripper work, and thus he interpreted the marks about her shoulders in a way that would fit such a wish: He offered the unsubstantiable guess that the marks came about as the killer pressed Stride to the ground, preparing to cut her, perhaps further steadying her by applying pressure on the chest.

I will offer another explanation that I find much more credible. I believe that the marks came about either when she was manhandled by BS man outside the yard, or if he grabbed her about the shoulders inside the yard, perhaps nailing her to the wall, begging her to see sense and stay with him.

If Phillips was right on this, then why does she endure this treatment and prelude to her own death without a sound? If he pressed her shoulders down simultaneously, he would have had no hand left to put over her mouth. And, likewise, if Phillips was right, and he did press her to the ground by applying his hands to her shoulders – why is it that she got plastered with mud on her left side instead of on her back…?

On the other hand, if I am right: No screams needed, and no mud on the back called for.

Oh, and one final point on the cachous. Let´s say it was Jack the Ripper who did it, and let´s surmise that he used his ordinary method of offering himself as a customer (if that was indeed what he did – we can of course not be sure even of this): Why would she bring out the cachous? Surely, if payed copulation was intended, she would not start out by munching on her cachous? Afterwards, perhaps, but not as a prelude.
On the other hand, if she went into the yard with someone she knew very well, and if sex had nothing to do with it, then it would be as natural for an 1880:s woman to bring out the cachous as it would be light a cigarette a hundred years later.

Phew, Dusty. Hope I managed it all…? And thank You for exchanging!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

The killer was pulling on Stride's scarf at the time he slit her throat. This is evident from how the knife knicked the scarf and followed along its edge as it cut her throat. Had to have been enormous pull for this to have taken place. If you want to know at what angle the scarf was at when she was killed, just look at the knife wound in the photo. It follows right along the bottom edge.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"Had to have been enormous pull for this to have taken place."

If she was cut while falling down, and if the killer held her scarf in a firm grip as she fell, then I think that would have been sufficient to cause the result evinced, especially if he was turning his hand , tightening the scarf further.

Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hi Fisherman,

We need a swift kill, so swift that she never had the time to cry out, and so swift that her left hand cramped around the cachous as the blade cut through her artery.

That's how I see it, too. The cachous suggest that Stride was calm the moment her killer struck, and that she didn't expect an attack. It seems unlikely she would have taken them out if she hadn't been calm. An attack as suggested by Blackwell fits quite well. Her scarf would tighten, with the bow to the left of her neck; because she was being pulled at from her left she would turn onto her left side falling down; as a result of her sudden fall, I don't think it's unlikely that her grip on the cachous tightened; to some extent falling against her killer or sliding along his body somewhat would make her bonnet end up a few inches from her head with no injuries to her head, back or elbows.

Phillips' conclusion doesn't fit with the facts. If Stride was seized by the shoulders and then placed on the ground, how would that work? How would she end up on her left side, while her killer seems to have applied more pressure on her right shoulder and not on her left? And if he pushed her causing her to fall, she would certainly end up more or less on her back, quite probably sustaining injuries to the back of her head, her upper back and/or elbows - but she didn't. Then the back of her dress would have been muddy as well - but it wasn't.

If her killer actually pinned her down to the ground by applying pressure on both shoulders like you interpreted Phillips' conclusion, that wouldn't fit with the evidence either, as the mud only being on her left side tells us that she had been lying on her left side from the outset.

Vi ses!
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

I think that the evidence does support an attack that commenced with the scarf being grabbed from behind, with the killers left hand ...some force being applied and possibly the scarf twisted by rotating his left wrist counter-clockwise, she loses her footing and falls into her neck sling effectively, and he turning towards her and in the process turning her to face the wall, runs his blade across her throat with his right hand...and releases her with his left. Could be one or two seconds.

I think, as someone said, the cashous just represent an attack that Liz did not see coming....as if she felt she was in no danger at all. Maybe after Broadshouldered Man has assured her, sarcastically... unbeknown to her, that he held no grudge for her shouting out and making him appear as some common ruffian a few minutes earlier. Or she may have been ending her conversation with him as it scared her, with a flippant turn of her back, and planning on using a cashous to get some moisture back in her mouth...that her fear had taken from her.

My best regards all.

[paul emmett]

Hello, all.

There are many convincing points made here, but I still feel that if the attack starts with pulling Stride backwards by her scarf, instict takes her arms up to save her neck, and she would have to open her hands and drop the cachous. Right? I know that Fisherman had said earlier that Stride would have only had to hold on as the fall commenced, but that seems to me to be the very time she would let go. Whether it's throat or balance or just being pulled down, the cachous seem tough to account for.

[FrankO]

Hi Paul,

There are many convincing points made here, but I still feel that if the attack starts with pulling Stride backwards by her scarf, instict takes her arms up to save her neck, and she would have to open her hands and drop the cachous. Right?

I’m not sure. What you say makes sense, but on the other hand I’ve seen it happen a couple of times that when people fall while holding something, they seem to tighten their grip and manage to cling to whatever they’re holding throughout the fall. So, the question would be: which of the two was the stronger instinct? To me it seems that instinct took her right hand up but left her left arm down clutching the cachous that way (if I’m not mistaken at least partly) ending up under her body. But I agree, there’s nothing clear-cut about the cachous.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Heureka! Frank speaks the language of honour and heroes!
What´s more, he speaks, sense, far as I can judge. As for Phillips not fitting with the facts, just like I said, I think that owes to him trying to make Strides death fit in with the other Ripper deeds. Searching for such a solution, interpreting the shoulder pressure marks as the results of her killer pressing her towards the ground Ripper-style would be the sensible thing to do.

As for the cachous, the backwards pulling and her inclination to save her neck (as Paul suggests), I think that Frank, Michael and me are in accordance here; her being taken by surprise is a very probable answer to her holding on to the cachous, and the fact that she had brought them out speaks of her having felt reassured that she was not at any immediate danger.

Paul, as for the cachous/neck point of yours, I think that we should first keep in mind that if she was indeed grabbed from behind and pulled backwards, she will not have seen her attackers doings at that split second. Therefore there would be no reason for her to anticipate a knife, especially not if the guy pulling her was a near aquaintance. There would only have been time for her to think "What the...", and the logical thing to do if you are brought out of balance is not to go for your neck - it is to try and regain that balance again by throwing out your arms to create a counterweight, and then, when you realize that it won´t be enough, to try and fend off the fall with your palms against the ground. And she would have suffered that cut somewhere in this process.

Imagine yourself going skating, when somebody grabs your jacket collar from behind and pulls you off balance. You don´t take the fall grabbing for your throat, do you? No, you throw your arms out in front of you, palms down, to try and regain your balance. If you don´t succeed, and the fall is not broken, the arms will make a circle backwards in the air, bringing them into a position where they are stretched out behind you, in order to fend off the fall with the palms against the ice. You have proably seen that specific movement hundreds of times, and at some occasion, you will have performed it yourself, right?

Now, if you change the setting to an icy street, on which you are walking carrying a bottle in your right hand, and you make that same sort of fall, you will stand a very good chance of clenching the bottle hard in that right hand of yours, while you use the left one to fend the fall off. It is only when you are carrying things in both hands that at least one of the items will probably have to go, in order to offer you the chance to fend the fall off.
Think about this, Paul: You must have seen somebody falling backwards like this, making that whopping counterweight swing with the arms, right? Statistically, at least some of these characters would have held something in one of their hands. But can you remember anybody of them letting go of that item, givin it an almighty swing up into the air? Because that is what would happen - if it was a bottle, it would have been thrown with maximum force from the hands of the falling person.
It may of course happen. But much as I can remember seeing falls like this, I don´t remember seeing somebody swing an item high up into the air doing so. How about you?

The best, Frank, Michael, Paul!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Sorry about the length of my post (length has always been my problem!!). I’m particularly sorry because you are obviously confused by it.


Confusion One:

You said,
I have all the consistency I need in Blackwells words.


Blackwell as quoted on the subject,

“It is, perhaps, most probable that she was on the ground first before her throat was cut …”

“… pulled the woman backwards and then cut her throat.”

“I cannot say whether the throat was cut while the woman was standing or after she was pulled backwards.”

"The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.”


Blackwell's version(s), as related by the papers, cannot be trusted. There are too many versions recorded.
But, as highlighted above the only definitive statements attributed to Blackwell concern the cut having been inflicted on the ground. Ergo

Fact: there is NO “consistency” to be had from Blackwell.

Confusion Two:

You said,
“…My guess is that Phillips very much wanted to see the Stride killing as another Ripper work, and thus he interpreted the marks about her shoulders in a way that would fit such a wish …”

Fortunately you need guess no more, Dr Phillips himself can relieve of burden of guessing. Phillips expressly tells the inquest and thus us,

“Coroner: Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?
Phillips: There is very great dissimilarity between the two.

As I said in my previous post, given the choice of the evidence of those there that were there is *entirely* consistent with death whilst on the ground, why go with inconsistencies and guesswork?

As to your description of the attack, it does read rather well on paper but as I also said before, try it. Preferably not with a knife, a paint brush or texta pen would do. Your describing something that Jackie Chan would spend a month practicing.

Unfortunately I’m out of time but I’ll try to walk you through the "awkwardness" of it all tomorrow.

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Well Dusty, I think that we read in what we want to read in here. On Blackwell, I would say that when you, in your first quotation, chose to highlight "most probable", you could just as well have opted for "perhaps". They were both there.

On Phillips, his pointing out that there were great dissimilarities between the cases of Chapman and Stride amounts to nothing much more than sense. If he had stated that the two deeds were coipis of each other, he would find himself in a vehicle headed for Colney Hatch soon after it, would he not?

To say that Phillips sound observation that the differences were great goes to show that he did not regard the Stride slaying as the Rippers work, is another thing altogether, since he at the same occasion also said:

”I gather that there seems to have been in this case, as in others that I have seen, some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result”, thereby feeding those who speak of Strides death as a Ripper deed with more than a mouthful. Weighed together, I´m afraid we are both at the mercy of guessing away to some extent here, Dusty!

On the ”Blackwell ist the more trustworty medical man – No, Phillips is the one who knew his stuff better” issue, I have always seen the fact that Blackwell was the one who performed the autopsy on Stride, Phillips taking notes as he went along, as a good pointer to the former not being inferior to the latter.

And as for Jackie Chan being the Ripper, I await your next post with great anticipation! I promise to not carve my fingers off while doing so!

The best, Dusty!

Fisherman

[paul emmett]

.

There would only have been time for her to think "What the...", and the logical thing to do if you are brought out of balance is not to go for your neck - it is to try and regain that balance again by throwing out your arms to create a counterweight, and then, when you realize that it won´t be enough, to try and fend off the fall with your palms against the ground. And she would have suffered that cut somewhere in this process.

if you change the setting to an icy street, on which you are walking carrying a bottle in your right hand, and you make that same sort of fall, you will stand a very good chance of clenching the bottle hard in that right hand of yours, while you use the left one to fend the fall off. It is only when you are carrying things in both hands that at least one of the items will probably have to go, in order to offer you the chance to fend the fall off.
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman. I can't imagine anyone giving a more thurough or thoughtful explanation of falling. But, while I can' be sure, I still don't buy it. Wouldn't, for example, the cachous be flying BEFORE she actually thought, What the . . .? Before logic? And if you are right about fending off the fall with the palms, I think the cachous are going then, too.

As to the issue of protect the neck or fend the fall, I asked my class. Majority answer: BOTH. That's why the bottle analogy--although I'm dropping any bottle except Chateau du Beaucastle--doesn't hold. Stride would do two different things instinctively. Neck and fall. Right bloodied hand and left cachous-less hand?

But I repeat, both myself and my class were impressed with your explanation. So if we don't believe the best explanation that can be given, might we ask if the killer put the cachous in her hand post-fall?

[FrankO]

Hi Paul,

So if we don't believe the best explanation that can be given, might we ask if the killer put the cachous in her hand post-fall?

Now that's something I wouldn't buy, Paul. First of all, Stride's murder gives the impression of a quick affair, so putting cachous in her hand wouldn't make any sense at all. What would be the use of it anyway? Secondly, like I said in an earlier post, I've seen it happen a couple of times that someone falling while holding something managed to keep hold of it throughout the fall. Only one and a half week ago it happened when a woman in front of me slid of some narrow stairs. She was holding a camera in her left hand while the rail was on that side too. Did she loose the camera in order to try and keep herself on her feet? No, she held on to the camera and slid down the whole set of stairs (which, fortunately, wasn't a long way).

And the first time I saw something like that is a couple of years back when I was in an Irish pub in Amsterdam. There was a guy there who was obviously quite drunk and he was holding a glass of beer. He was staggering and at some point he lost his balance and fell. My friends and I watched it and were waiting for the glass to break hitting the floor - but it didn't. The bloke held on to it, which was obviously an odd sight but made us laugh. That incident is what actually made me think the same sort of thing could rather simply explain the cachous in Stride's case.

All the best,
Frank

[Cap'n Jack]

Jesus Christ, Frank, I didn't realise anyone had seen me that night in the Irish pub in Amsterdam.
Just goes to show...