Two

[caz]

Hi Caz

Liz`s bruises and the position her body when found were discussed earlier in the thread.

It was noted that Liz lay on her left side and looked like she had been placed there, rather than thrown. Link this with the bruises over right collar bone and chest it looks like she has been forced down by some sort of Vulcan grip over right shoulder, and held down, pushing her down on her left side.

Hi Jon,

Indeed so.

For me, that neatly sums up the Schwartz problem. Liz had to find her way to the ground somehow, courtesy of whoever killed her, and here we have Schwartz thinking he is describing a reasonable scenario that explains how she met her downfall (pun intended). But the reported injuries do not appear to add up to how Schwartz saw it all go down. Far from it in fact. No physical evidence for her being thrown down at all, never mind violently, by the average Saturday night drunken thug who doesn't know his own strength.

And if you can get over that little obstacle there's a chunk missing where the same man supposedly takes stock while letting the object of his aggression pick herself up, dust herself off and even take her sweeties out, before he starts all over again, but this time getting into quite a different stride (pun that tends to creep up unbidden) that leaves her with only the signs of this fatal second wind.

If Schwartz thought his account of Liz's ordeal was self-explanatory and helpful, I'd say he was mistaken on both counts.

Was he perhaps only guilty of using his dramatic licence to create more of a scene than he had actually seen?

"Was that a dagger I saw before me?"

"No, 'twas only a pipe you fool."


"Didst I not hear the woman scream three times, but not very loudly?"

"No, 'twas only the owl screaming and the crickets crying."


"I was only trying to help."

(Translations from the Hungarian Phrase Book. There never was a hovercraft full of eels.)

Love,

Caz
X

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Everyone

Just getting back on topic…

I thought I had read somewhere that there was blood on Strides hands and wrist. I’ve found it..

JtR Facts p162.

When the body was undressed it was noted that that there was a bluish discoloration over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest. These marks were produced by pressure from two hands, but may not have been recent or connected with the crime. Dr Philips believed that Stride had been seized by the shoulders and forced onto the ground, where her murderer, who was on her right side (ie Facing the wall), had cut her throat left from right. He thought that the murderer had ‘a knowledge of where to cut the throat’ and stated that he would not necessarily have been blood stained, the commencement of the wound being away from the murderer, so that the blood flowed away from him into the gutter.

HOWEVER, Philips theory did not account for Strides bloodstained hand and wrist, and he wasn’t able to provide an explanation for it?

Does this indicate that Stride did indeed put up a struggle unlike the other victims??

Pirate

[Jon Guy]

Was he perhaps only guilty of using his dramatic licence to create more of a scene than he had actually seen?

I was thinking that it was possibly more likely that Schwartz did describe the incident as it happened, and it was just lost in translation.

[perrymason]

Hi Everyone

Just getting back on topic…

I thought I had read somewhere that there was blood on Strides hands and wrist. I’ve found it..

JtR Facts p162.

When the body was undressed it was noted that that there was a bluish discoloration over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest. These marks were produced by pressure from two hands, but may not have been recent or connected with the crime. Dr Philips believed that Stride had been seized by the shoulders and forced onto the ground, where her murderer, who was on her right side (ie Facing the wall), had cut her throat left from right. He thought that the murderer had ‘a knowledge of where to cut the throat’ and stated that he would not necessarily have been blood stained, the commencement of the wound being away from the murderer, so that the blood flowed away from him into the gutter.

HOWEVER, Philips theory did not account for Strides bloodstained hand and wrist, and he wasn’t able to provide an explanation for it?

Does this indicate that Stride did indeed put up a struggle unlike the other victims??

Pirate

I think that may stem from her throwing her hands up to her throat when he took hold of her scarf. Blackwell noted the nicks on the scarf, and the twisted knot, it would seem that for at least a moment or two, she was choked. If he cuts her while falling, a possibility, her hands would still be at the scarf and would likely get some blood on them as she fell...gradually relaxing and dropping from her neck.

Why would she have cashous in her hand when that happens? In my estimation, because she didnt know the scarf choke was coming. She was not threatened. Why not? Because her back was turned to the killer and she was perhaps heading back out the gates.

Cheers all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Seriously, years ago, I played with the possibility that "theatrical appearance" could be describing "Astrakhan Man".

Same here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate and Perry,

The blood on her hands and wrist appeared as oblong spots and were probably transfered there from her neck by Edward Johnston when he first unbuttoned her collar and then felt her wrist. At least that's how I see it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Pirate and Perry,

The blood on her hands and wrist appeared as oblong spots and were probably transfered there from her neck by Edward Johnston when he first unbuttoned her collar and then felt her wrist. At least that's how I see it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thats a reasonable interpretation Tom, you may well be right. It is somewhat surprising to me that they would even let someone hanging outside the Beehive touch the body at all.....doesnt Diemshutz say he told everyone that had come out to see the woman to not touch anything? he just lights a match and then runs inside when he found her, leading one to believe that he didnt check for a pulse....so why would they let Spooner do that?

If the police suspected anyone touched or moved the body in any way that would have likely been Club people....so letting a stranger, Spooner, do his own thing by the body seems odd to me.

Might be nothing.

Cheers Tom

[Archaic]

Huh???

These days many actors are atheists because they're gay, liberal, or from California. But many (such as Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and countless others) see no reason they have to lose their soul to follow their calling. I understand where you're coming from, but I still consider it very unfair generalization to assume all or most actors are Godless creatures.
Tom Wescott

Huh? Are Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis really your ideal Christian role models?

I wonder how their ex-and-soon-to-be-ex-wives who caught their husbands breaking their marriage vows by having affairs with women half their age would respond to that assessment? (Gibson's illicit affair with a 24yr old Russian pop-star is in the papers right now.)

And how in the world does being from California (as I am) make you an atheist? (I'm not!)

For that matter, how does being gay or liberal make you an atheist?

And what does ANY of this have to do with the murder of poor Elizabeth Stride??? I'm baffled.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

Huh? Are Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis really your ideal Christian role models?

I wonder how their ex-and-soon-to-be-ex-wives who caught their husbands breaking their marriage vows by having affairs with women half their age would respond to that assessment? (Gibson's illicit affair with a 24yr old Russian pop-star is in the papers right now.)

And how in the world does being from California (as I am) make you an atheist? (I'm not!)

For that matter, how does being gay or liberal make you an atheist?

And what does ANY of this have to do with the murder of poor Elizabeth Stride??? I'm baffled.

Best regards, Archaic

I dont think a bash is in order for some ideas that Tom was discussing regarding my comments Arc Angel .....I was simply suggesting that religion would mean little to an actor in the LVP unless he is involved with community theater within his own ethnic group. Using modern actors I know as the basis.

Its not worth arguing about.

Cheers

[Ben]

Seriously, years ago, I played with the possibility that "theatrical appearance" could be describing "Astrakhan Man".

Quite possibly, Jon. I can also picture the broad-shouldered man cursing his luck at being thwarted by such an individual and plotting his revenge accordingly: "I'll get back at those theatrically-dressed Jews, just you wait!"

On that subject, I'm not so sure about Schwartz needing to be neutral on the subject of religion in order to survive in the acting profession (if that was his business). It might injur his professional credibility to espouse extreme views on the subject in a very public fashion, but in private, he could have harboured whatever radical views he wished without fear of them getting in the way of pulling off a decent performance. So I wouldn't agree that a neutrality on most subjects would make an actor any better. One might reasonably surmise that Anthony Hopkins was very much against murder and cannabalism when he took on the role of Hannibal Lector, but he did an excellent job anyway - not because he was open to the idea of tongue-eating, but because he was pretending to be someone who was.

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Archaic,

Where's your sense of irony? I was accusing PM of generalizing while I was generalizing all over the place. It was subtle, I know.

Perry,

Everyone on the site thought Edward Johnston was a doctor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"Everyone on the site thought Edward Johnston was a doctor."

Johnston described himself at the inquest as an assistant to the doctors Blackwell and Kaye. He informed the coroner that he had been the person approached by the policeman coming to fetch a doctor, and he stated that he in his turn informed Blackwell that he would set off for Berner Street. Blackwell was sleeping at the time the police arrived, and could not rush off immediately.

A logical deduction, digesting all of this, would be that Johnstons status was not that of a non-credited apprentice with very little knowledge - instead he was trusted by Blackwell to rush ahead in advance and get the work started in Dutfields yard. To me, that speaks of much trust in him on behalf of Blackwell. And I think that is very important to realize, trying to establish what role he would have played.

Therefore, when you write "The blood on her hands and wrist appeared as oblong spots and were probably transfered there from her neck by Edward Johnston when he first unbuttoned her collar and then felt her wrist", I am thankful that you add "At least that's how I see it". As you know, I think that this interpretation is not a very credible one. Johnston tells us that the blood had all but run away down the gutter when he arrived, and that it was clotting, pointing to the fact that he could see exactly what he was doing all of the time. It must also be noted that NOBODY of the early witnesses, Spooner, Lamb, Johnston ever mentions having seen Stride´s right hand, whereas they ALL tell us the exact postion of the left one. Probable conclusion? They never saw the right one, and therefore they did not see the blood on it either, the blood that was in all probability there all the time from the outset.

As you admit yourself, your scenario involves a very awkward thing, namely the doctors lying on Johnstons behalf, as well as his own either forgetting about the fact that he had had his hands smeared with blood or simply lying about it.

Much as you are (of course) welcome to this rather fanciful interpretation of how Stride got the dots of blood on her hand and wrist, it should be pointed out that is not a very likely scenario. It also has the distinct disadvantage of urging to disbelieve that the blood is crucial murder evidence instead of a pointer to a clumsy doctor´s assistant and a pair of cheeting medicos...

...at least that is how I see it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

None of your huffing and puffing has ever robbed my theory of its inherent sense of truth and I doubt that's liable to change any time soon, Fish. As for Johnston, Perry was referring to Diemschutz and the layman at the scene, who took Johnston to be a doctor.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"None of your huffing and puffing has ever robbed my theory of its inherent sense of truth and I doubt that's liable to change any time soon."

Not soon, Tom - that already happened. You were´nt around to realize it though...

Cheating doctors, a clumsy assistant who manages to transfer clotting blood in oblong dots without producing fingerprints AND who uses his fingers on the back of the hand instead of on the front (the way ALL other medicos seemingly did and still do), theorizing that the right hand must have been seen by the early witnesses although it would in all probability have been effectively hidden from sight does not add up to an ...ehrm, ... "inherent sense of truth". There are other and better names for such things.

But like I say, that´s just me. Anybody can read the evidence in whatever fashion they choose to.

The best,
Fisherman
huffing and puffing away

[Tom_Wescott]

You're a powerful and attractive man, Fisherman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott