Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[Fisherman]

There is no recording of Schwartz speaking of the pinned-on flower of Strides, far as I know. As for Marshall, Smith and Brown, only Smith spoke of the flower. Marshalls sighting preceded Smiths with something just short of an hour, and as he described Strides clothing in an acceptable manner, it seems reasonable to accept that he indeed saw her. The fact that he did not see the flower could of course be explained by accepting that she perhaps got it after having been seen by Marshall.
Browns sighting may have been one of another couple altogether; the description of the man´s clothes seems to point in that direction.

As For Schwarz, his sighting was that of a quarreling couple, where B S manhandled Stride. That would have been the main focus of his interest, and secondary issues like clothing and general appearance may well have been undernourished attentionwise.We are not speaking of any lenghty periods of time here, and since the whole scene seemingly started out with BS man walking in front of Schwartz towards Stride, there is good reason to ponder the possibility that BS man was standing between Schwartz and Stride as most of the event was acted out, perhaps leaving Schwartz with precious little opportunity to notice the flower.

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Hi Fisherman.

Regarding the litmus, I meant that some use the rose to bury certian witnesses and praise others. One of the reasons Sugden rules against Brown, for example, is that he didn't see the red rose against the contrasting dark background of Stride's clothes. I had never seen anyone do this for Scwartz. Why wasn't he asked about it?

You have addressed some of this, but I guess when I see Scwartz coming at Stride, behind BS, I see his vision focused on Stride, unless BS man is really broad.

Paul

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul!

First off, we do not know what his was asked or not, since the interrogation report is not avaliable to us. I think we must accept that he probably WAS asked about the flower, but his comments on that question have gone lost, and we are left with only his description of BS man.

Another thing to consider here, is that witness psychology dictates that the parts most likely to be remembered after having witnessed an event of some sort, is the details connected to the split second where your interest is aroused by something out of the ordinary. In a case displaying violence, like this one, Schwartz´interest will have been quite low up til the moment where BS man grabs Stride and tries to drag her out into the street. THAT is the focal point of Schwartz evidence, whereas the rest is more likely to lack in detail. But when BS grabbed Stride, Schwartz´senses were automatically sharpened and what took place then is the part he is most likely to have remembered correctly (which is a good thing, since it involves the all-important factor of BS man trying to drag Stride into the street!).

Now, for instance, the bit leading up to it, as Schwartz was walking behind BS man down Berner Street, is something that would have been soon forgotten - if it had not been for the following violence. That would have called upon him to try to remember the prelude too, but that prelude would of course have to be reconstructed from a point where his interest and observation powers had not been all that keen.
And although he would have taken in a lot of what happened after BS had failed to drag Stride along with him (as witnessed by his testimony), those following parts would have been less carefully noted by Schwartz.
And, most importantly, his attention would have been focused on the violence, and probably mainly on BS man´s actions, since he was the one dictating the events - Stride played a more passive role, and that dictates less interest. When a boxer comes up with a flurry of hard hits, you don´t focus on the guy on the receiving end, do you?
Moreover, after a boxing fight, you are much more likely to remember the character of the blows, than you are to recall the colour of the boots of the guy that delivered them. The clothing of two boxers is taken in by you BEFORE they start boxing - after that, your focus lies on the fighting details.

Therefore I say, that if Schwartz had nothing to say about what bonnet Stride wore, what colour of jacket she had on, if her boots were laced up properly - or if she had any flowers pinned to her chest - it would not have been strange in any way. It would have been a normal outcome.

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

Im not sure whether its been mentioned, but Liz's flower also included a sprig of Maidenfern?...with white accents, so if someone who got a good look at her and didnt notice it, against her all black attire, then she either hadnt received it yet, or he didnt see Liz at all. Liz had money earned from the days work cleaning rooms, enough to pay for her room in advance...but she didnt. She had no money when found, so she may have bought that flower herself.

To cd, granted... the killer is never seen before or after a murder for certain, so he does sort of "appear", but Dutfields yard was stated as empty by two separate witnesses up until 12:40am, and at 12:45am, Schwartz witnesses the altercation just outside the gates and mentions only Liz, Broadshouldered Man and Pipeman across the street...no-one comes from the yard to see whats going on. So if Schwartz feels he is chased off by Pipeman...something which obviously means that BS and PM were working together if true, then it leaves BS and Liz just outside the gates, just after an altercation between them, and with as little as 1 minute, and as much as ten minutes, before her throat gets cut....by Blackwells TOD estimate. And feet from that very location. Not only does Jack have to appear from nowhere, but you also have to explain why BS leaves so abruptly...he does help her up remember.

If they stood and talked for a few minutes, or if BS grabs her by the bicep and leads her into the yard, to straighten some things out with the lady, you have no need...or no obvious opening, for another man to enter via the gates. If Jack was in that club at that time...you may have a shot, but since I think Jack was not Jewish, but rather anti-semetic, I personally dont see him attending to hear Eagles speech on "Why Jews should be Socialists" that night.

With Liz, there is nowhere near enough evidence to declare her anything but a murder victim...in a case that remains unsolved.

My very best all.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

And yet Monro himself expressed doubts about the evidence that you have put forth saying that it was possible that the BS man was not Liz's killer.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

Fisherman

I`ll see if I can come back to you later with the Warren quote, and that picture, that or an apology !!

Hi Fisherman

Hurrah hurrah

Found it !!! Sourcebook pg 136

It was a report from Warren to the Home Office, dated 6th Nov 1888, as follows :

"that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride`s case" .

I may have to concede the point regarding the illustration I claim to have seen of Kidney sporting a beard. The one you have seen is probably the one I saw and if you can`t recall a beard there probably wasn`t one.

Thanks for the words regarding my input - appreciated !!

[Tom_Wescott]

Just skimming over the numerous posts here, but a few thoughts:

* It was Swanson - not Monroe - who wrote the Oct. 19th report discussing the Schwartz statement, and it was Swanson who noted there was plenty of time for another man to come along and killed Stride after BS man left.

* Dr. Phillips believed the wound to Stride's throat indicated 'knowledge of where to cut the throat', so Fisherman saying this was a 'loose assumption' of mine is incorrect.

* Kidney had an alibi

* None of Liz's close associates seem to have thought Kidney likely to kill her.

* Kidney in no way resembled BS Man or Pipeman.

* There is absolutely no reason to think or assume Michael Kidney killed Stride. Those who go so far as to elevate this unsupported notion to the level of 'likely' and 'probable' are romantics

* If one wants to believe that someone other than JTR killed Stride, there are far better suspects than Michael Kidney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Dr. Phillips believed the wound to Stride's throat indicated 'knowledge of where to cut the throat'

I'm not as to what Phillips was getting at here, Tom. I might be guilty of naivete, but surely the options are limited to:

1. Inflicting a cut to the side of the neck (right/left - doesn't matter much);

2. Inflicting a cut to the front of the neck;

3. Inflicting a cut to the back of the neck.

The last option is slightly silly, so we can rule that out. In terms of the killer "knowing" where to cut, we're therefore left with a 50:50 chance at worst, aren't we? Granted the depth of the cut would have to change at different points on the throat in order to cut the blood vessels effectively, but if sufficient force were used anyway that might not materially matter.

In terms of where one might have "learned" this skill, illustrations in "penny bloods" aside, was not the expression "throat cut from ear to ear" common enough in the vernacular to have given even the novice a clue on how to go about it?

[Fisherman]

Evenin´Tom!

No, Fishermans pointing out of your sentence "In Stride's case there's most certainly evidence of experience in the way the knife was used" as being a loose assumption is anything but incorrect. You read Phillips´statement the way the devil reads the Bible, Tom. There was only one way he could bring the topic of knowledge into the discussion, and that was by admitting that IF the cut was purposefully made at the place it ended up, then it MAY indicate that the killer knew that the carotid artery is positioned to the side of the neck.
Did Phillips KNOW that the killer had this knowledge? Nope. Was it a long cut? It was a full six inches. Is there any way that you could apply a six inch long cut to the neck of a woman of Strides stature WITHOUT having that cut passing over a carotid artery? Njet.

The cut was deep on the left side, yes. But that could have come about as a result of either
a/ intent from the killers side
or
b/ the fact that it was the ergonomically plausible thing to do, owing to his grip on her
or
c/a sudden movement or wriggling of Stride - as he tried to cut her larynx.

We-do-not-know. WE_DO_NOT_KNOW.

It is as simple as that. There is nothing that urges us to accept that the carotid artery MUST have been targetted, and that this targetting MUST have owed to the fact that the killer knew how to kill.
Have a look at Chapman. Have a look at Nichols. THAT killer must have been a VERY unknowledgable one, since he cut their throats all the way down to the bone, severing both arteries. Clumsy guy. No finesse at all. Strange thing those two ladies didn´t survive, given his ignorance on killing matters.

What we DO know of Stride is that she in all probability lived for some time after the cut. We know of other, similar cases, where the cut victim survived artery damage such as that suffered by Stride. And you do not have to be some sort of genius to realize that leaving a victim behind that may have lived on to point you out afterwards, tallies very poorly with the picture of a criminal mastermind and a killing minimalist that you are trying to paint, using a half-full bucket of water.
Therefore, loose assumption it is, Tom. And that still stands, as does the fact that the alibi you are speaking of on Kidneys behalf is as illusive as the cunning, clever knowledge behind the slash that killed Stride. You are so dead sure it´s there that it stops you from realizing that there is zero proof of it.

And stop calling those of us who see a dreary, tedious domestic affair as more probable than a ghostlike serial killer with an uncanny talent for finding the exact killing spot in complete darkness "romantics", Tom. Can´t you see who is pouring on the novel stuff here?

I am not opposed to BS man being somebody else than Kidney. But if so, it would have been another very close aquaintance of Strides. But Kidney has to top the list until he can be cleared. Simple as that.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam!

You beat me to it again! Anyhow, It seems I added a few blows of my own, and adding good measure is sometimes called for...

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Just skimming over the numerous posts here, but a few thoughts:

* It was Swanson - not Monroe - who wrote the Oct. 19th report discussing the Schwartz statement, and it was Swanson who noted there was plenty of time for another man to come along and killed Stride after BS man left.

* Dr. Phillips believed the wound to Stride's throat indicated 'knowledge of where to cut the throat', so Fisherman saying this was a 'loose assumption' of mine is incorrect.

* Kidney had an alibi

* None of Liz's close associates seem to have thought Kidney likely to kill her.

* Kidney in no way resembled BS Man or Pipeman.

* There is absolutely no reason to think or assume Michael Kidney killed Stride. Those who go so far as to elevate this unsupported notion to the level of 'likely' and 'probable' are romantics

* If one wants to believe that someone other than JTR killed Stride, there are far better suspects than Michael Kidney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yes, I had said it was Monro who believed that there was enough time for another killer to come along but Tom is correct that it was Swanson. I stand corrected and embarrassed (well not so much).

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Warren, that is not an original observation of his that should be used to support Anderson's erroneous assertion that Schwartz was at the inquest. Instead, Warren was simply quoting Anderson verbatim. He had no clue. Also, when Anderson wrote that Schwartz was at the inquest, it was almost certainly because he'd read Swanson's report and mistakenly assumed that the description, etc. that Swanson was quoting had come from an inquest statement.

Fisherman and Sam. You can say what you will about Dr. Phillips, but the man had something like 50 years experience in examining throat wounds. If he felt the man who killed Stride was experienced and knew what he was doing, then there's little for us to add.

Fisherman,

I'm sorry, I just don't have time to read long rambling posts. Please condense. And I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks Kidney the likely killer of Stride in spite of the dizzying evidence to the contrary could only be described as a romantic because they reached their conclusion in spite of the evidence and not because of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariag]

Here's a scenario for you:

Stride has been assaulted by BS and is in rough shape. She's hoping that her "boyfriend" will come back so she ducks bheind the gates to straighten herself up, attend to her personal matters etc.

Jack is at the club. He leaves by the side door, either intending to go to a privy in the back near the stable or maybe he's had enough alcohol so that he can do his thing that night.

Eureka! There's a woman with her back to him , just plopped down in his path! He cuts her throat but before he can do anything else, hears Diemshutz and either hides behind the gates or sprints to the back of the yard, or even just goes back into the club with no one the wiser and exits the front door.

Unsatisfied.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Tom,

Fisherman and Sam. You can say what you will about Dr. Phillips, but the man had something like 50 years experience in examining throat wounds.

...which led him to apportion "expertise" to the crude butcher who had hacked Annie Chapman's uterus away.

I have just under 40 years' worth of "real world" experience, and I'd stake my house on my earlier statement that the killer only had a choice of left/right-front/back options in cutting Stride's throat. It doesn't require a degree in rocket science, let alone medical science, to work that out

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I always like having Tom weigh in, I think he's a true expert on this killing in particular, but I dont agree with the opinion that there are any better suspects than Broadshouldered Man. We have the condition..drunk, we have an altercation between BS and Liz that is witnessed, and it occurs 15 minutes before she is found dead. With no-one left at that scene when Pipeman leaves, by Schwartz only mentioning two men and Liz, that leaves a man who was witnessed semi-assaulting a murder victim, minutes and feet from where she is killed. And it circumstantially links Pipeman and Broadshouldered Man.

But he is certainly the primary suspect, as being the last man seen with the victim still alive...just as Blotchy Man becomes prime suspect after Astrakan is abandoned. If Schwartz told the truth... its remotely possible that Schwartz is the eyewitness later called in for ID's, not Lawende.

This is also the only canonical where a medical opinion includes the possibility that she was cut while falling. Now we have an altercation that may well have been repeated in some fashion inside the gates, only with a knife drawn across the throat as he drops her.

Liz Stride may have been cut as early as 12:46am, by medical opinion...so its impossible to rule out Broadshouldered Man...and possibly working with Pipeman.

My best regards all.