saving Liz Stride

[Jon Guy]

Hi C.D.

I am simply speaking of Liz being thrown to the ground as Schwartz described not her being killed. You are equating the two and there is no evidence of that. They are two different events.

As Doctor Philips noted, they were scattered around the yard where she fell, she did drop them, if that`s what logic requires her to do if falling, although she could use her fist, and not drop the cachous.

I don`t understand the importance of the cachous, C.D.
She took em out for herself or BS Man, and during the assault she spilled some and the paper was lodged between her fingers?

I am guilty of equating the two, but only because it is the most logical scenario. I can`t believe that we have to have another person enter the scene and attack her on the exact spot within a ten minute period that no-one heard or saw, or BS Man continued with his murderous attack after Schwartz leaves.

Edit: Thank you, Lynn, too late for me however, the cachous were spilled by the doctor.
But still, they were lodged between her thumb and finger so it seems she didn`t have time to drop the cachous.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon. I refer to the body placement post mortem.

Now to account for why he drags her body 10 feet.

No need to Lynn. Schwartz tells us where she was thrown?

[lynn cates]

equal time

Hello CD. Recall the motivation of this thread? I have seen 2 excellent reconstructions of Liz's death where the assailant is NOT Jack. Now, equal time.

I wish someone would write a dissertation about this, as Fisherman did, and put it in casebook.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

measure for measure

Hello Jon. Schwartz stated twice that she was assaulted just outside the gates. Her body was found with her feet 9' INSIDE the gates.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

hurling Liz

Hello Jon. It now occurs to me that you are suggesting that BS hurled Liz the 10 feet into the yard. Very well, I presume that he had great strength as evidenced by his broad shoulders.

The best.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Schwartz stated twice that she was assaulted just outside the gates. Her body was found with her feet 9' INSIDE the gates.

We of course have to remember that this is only a translation by an as yet unidentified person, who happened to be available to translate Schwartz` Hungarian dialect.

"he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

[Roy Corduroy]

Read Jon's post 70

The footway is inside the yard.

[c.d.]

Hi Jon,

I'll answer your question and then bow out. It is a nice day here and I have already spent way too much time on this thread.

In my opinion, the cachous hold the key. We have Liz being thrown to the ground by the BS man per Schwartz's account. We also have the implied threat of violence against Schwartz with the yell of Lipski. Now if Liz was holding the cachous in her hand at the time it is most likely they would have been broken in the fall. The natural tendency is to try and catch yourself with your hands when you fall. The obvious conclusion is that she most likely did not have the cachous in her hand when she fell. So when did she take them out? As Lynn pointed out, she was not killed where she was seen by Schwartz but ended up in the yard. How did she get there? Would she have voluntarily gone off with a man who had just thrown her to the ground and appeared violent? That doesn't seem likely. More likely she was dragged. I think it is a reasonable conclusion at this point that Liz is now terrified. Does this really seem like a good time to take out a cachous? Even if the cachous survived her being thrown to the ground, what about the dragging? What about her trying to fend off the BS man? If you are trying to push someone away you need to do it with the flat of your hand. If you are being choked, you want to get the hand away from your throat. You need an open hand to do that in which case the cachous would fall out.

The conclusion would appear to be that Liz was at ease when she took out the cachous. It would seem much more reasonable that she was with a customer who did not appear threatening and that the attack came swiftly before she could react and thus the cachous remained in her hand. It is just too hard to accept that the cachous could make it through the whole BS man scenario intact.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

Read Jon's post 70

The footway is inside the yard.

Exactly!! Thank you, Roy.

I don`t have the stamina for this. I`m going to have to watch tv for a bit now.

[Archaic]

I think Archaic has given the least implausible account.

Thanks, Lynn, I feel proud.

I guess "least implausible" is about as good as it gets when trying to make sense of some of these old stumpers.

Best regards, Archaic

[Jon Guy]

I'll answer your question and then bow out. It is a nice day here and I have already spent way too much time on this thread.

Good call, it`s seven in the evening and I`m knackered, Thanks for answering my question, seems we see things differently on the matter.

To be honest, C.D. I don`t know why I allow myself to be drawn in? It wasn`t even a Ripper murder

[Jon Guy]

Thanks, Lynn, I feel proud.
I guess "least implausible" is about as good as it gets when trying to make sense of some of these old stumpers.

That`s pretty good for around here, Archy, don`t complain my friend!!

[Archaic]

Oh, no, Jon, please don't think I'm disappointed- in fact, I am well chuffed!

(My English friends taught me that one. lol )

Cheers, Archaic

[Jon Guy]

Oh, no, Jon, please don't think I'm disappointed

I`m sorry, it`s a natural inference on my part when talking to a woman.

[Archaic]

Jon made a couple of excellent points that I feel are important.

We of course have to remember that this is only a translation by an as yet unidentified person, who happened to be available to translate Schwartz` Hungarian dialect.

Yes, that's true. I've often wondered how accurate the translation of Schwartz's testimony was. We pick it apart word by word, looking for clues, but we don't even know if it's exactly what Schwartz said.

In the 19th populations were much more isolated and languages had numerous local dialects which could be quite difficult for a person used to a different dialect to grasp. The translator might understand the gist of it but missed certain inherent subtleties, some of which are conveyed by highly localized idiomatic phrases or even simple inflection.

I think we have to assume that in the process of translation and transcription certain shades of meaning might very well have been lost, and others might have crept in. And now 120 years later we quote it, tear it all apart and argue over in modern English! Oi vey.

In fact, the person translating Schwartz's testimony was almost certainly NOT the same person who was recording it,
thus creating more potential for error.

... basically Schwartz said he saw a man stop and try and pull a woman into the street BUT he turned her around, so she must be facing into the yard, and threw her down on the footway, which was the path worn into the stones that ran along the side of the club, where she was found.

I have previously posted the source of the reference to locals referring to a footway alongside the club.

Eureka! Thanks Jon for clearing that up.

The footway is often presented as being the same as what we would call the sidewalk -in other words, the pedestrian area running parallel to the road proper- which made the scenario in Schwartz's testimony rather problematic as it positioned Liz farther from the gate.

But if the footway in question is actually the footway leading into Dutfield's yard, the situation is suddenly much easier to visualize and understand.

And as for the killer 'dragging" Liz to where she was found, I visualize something much more rapid. I think he would have acted very fast, in the blink of an eye.

Think about it- he has invested all this time in her, he is just itching to cut her throat and mutilate her body, and he's got to be incredibly angry at both Liz and Schwartz for having delayed his plans thus far. He has already chosen his victim and invested his time and energy into her- she's his. That's how killers think; they are highly egocentric. And it is in situations like this, where they have made their "investment" and fear being thwarted entirely, that killers often do something quite reckless in a compulsive effort to "salvage" the situation so that they still get what they want.
His frustration and blood-lust are building by the second. He's pumped up on adrenalin and whatever it is that makes killers go berserk when they finally "have" their victim. It's almost the way a person on PCP behaves; they suddenly exhibit almost super-human strength and become whirlwinds of destruction.

I believe that wherever Liz was standing and whatever direction she was facing when he pounced, the killer exerted all his seething energy- physical, sexual, psychological- to instantly grab her and slash her throat, simultaneously propelling her to the spot where he laid her down.
9 or 10 feet was nothing to him. He could have propelled the dying Liz into the yard a mere 4 feet or so, then as she was still held in his grip in a slumped-but-upright position, let her feet and legs touch the ground, then her torso, then her head- all very rapidly- and she would be on the ground in the position in which she was found.

It's easy to understand the intense rage and frustration he would have felt at that moment as Louis Diemschutz is suddenly heard approaching with his pony-cart, and the killer suddenly knows he has been thwarted again.

Best regards, Archaic