Did jack kill liz stride?

[moonbegger]

Unbashed and very much unashamed ..

I'm sorry Tom, but to my occasional detriment I don't have a kiss ass bone in my body .. unlike many I could speak of

cheers

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

I was wondering if Wick was cheering on all the points you made in the moonbashing post .. including the ones you made he was unaware of ?

Unbashed and very much unashamed ..

Moonbegger .

Ah, I could have been clearer, I was only commenting on the points Tom was making concerning the case.
I was oblivious to anything else...

[lynn cates]

the spot

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

". . . how is it possible to tell what direction she was facing at the point when he subdued her into passive submission?"

Subdued her? Have you watched my reenactment? She died roughly where she was.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I thought she died looking north, facing the club wall?"

Not quite. She was "lain gently down", body oriented on a roughly east-west axis. Her head towards the club, her feet towards Berner.

Cheers.
LC

I don't know what all this north, east, west, east-west stuff is, but here's how it happened. Imagine you're stepping off Berner Street and through the open gates of Dutfield's Yard; to your right is the club wall. Running along the wall is a makeshift gutter outlined with rough, jagged stones. The gates are opened inwards. Right at the swing of the right gate are a woman's feet. She's lying prostrate, lengthwise not across the passageway but along the gutter, at only a slight angle. Her head lays on a large stone on which a lot of blood has collected and is running off into the gutter, mingling with the water from the earlier rain. This leaves the impression with the doctors of there being more blood than they'd normally expect.

In case there's any confusion, her body is not laying lengthwise across the passageway as described by Blackwell at the inquest. Blackwell either misspoke, was taken out of context, or he's describing the position of the body after Edward Johnston had moved it.

I'm not good with directions, but if anybody is drawing a hypothesis on how Stride was positioned from Blackwell's mistaken inquest testimony then your hypothesis is flawed and does not represent her position as discovered by Diemshitz and witnessed by Spooner and Johnston.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sorry Tom, but to my occasional detriment I don't have a kiss ass bone in my body .. unlike many I could speak of

cheers

moonbegger

Hi Moon. I genuinely don't know what you're talking about in this and your previous post. I don't believe I accused you of ass-kissing, though it appears you're accusing others of kissing ass? Whose? Mine? I should think not. Me buns are anything but chapped.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Ah, I could have been clearer, I was only commenting on the points Tom was making concerning the case.
I was oblivious to anything else...

And this is how it should be, particularly when it comes to Stride. Lest you be led astray, listen only to what Tom doth say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

Ill format my responses using your quotes in bold;


But the evidence is that Schwartz did see some sort of altercation between the murder victim and a broad-shouldered man. You can't just dismiss his entire police statement as an out-and-out lie - not without some evidence that this particular witness, or his interpreter, had a logical reason to invent it.

The evidence is that someone identified as Israel Schwartz made a statement to the police that Sunday night in which he claims to have seen and heard a scuffle between the murdered woman and a Broadshoulderd assailant at around 12:45, almost in front of the gates. That witness statement and its provider were not presented at the Inquest into the woman's murder, according to available documents. Not one other witness in the area saw or heard any of what Schwartz describes.

My conclusion based on the above is that Schwartz'z story, despite being supported internally by some authorities, was deemed as irrelevant to the discussions as to how this woman encountered her death, something that would suggest disbelief in his story, considering the nature of his story...its timing and locale, would be of paramount importance if believed. I dont know why they would disbelieve him, I could understand a connection to the club as being a possible reason.


And we all know you don't fancy this a ripper murder, Michael, which is presumably why you have to play fast and loose with stuff like Schwartz's testimony, while getting on your high horse about others sticking like glue to the existing evidence.

Again, he isnt the witness on record for the time of 12:45am Caz, Brown is...despite the fact that his statement leaves great doubt as to whether he in fact saw Liz Stride with someone. Israel, apparently, wasnt relevant to the task assigned to the Inquest.

So if the killer of Nichols and Chapman had mutilated them after caving in their skulls twice with a frying pan, and Stride's skull had been caved in once by a frying pan-shaped object, the lack of a second blow or any actual ripping would indicate to you that at least two killers were at large in the vicinity, armed with lethal frying pans, despite the rarity of street women anywhere being murdered in the middle of the night with any type of weapon?

Thats a pretty facetious question there Caz. A short response would be that Strides murder in many ways is unlike the murders of the previous 2 "Ripper" victims, who were, in fact, very alike in almost every respect. Ill add that it is unlike the next murder in the so-called series, and has almost nothing in common with the murder in room 13.


Funny, but I don't recall anyone calling Stride's murder a "ripping". Making stuff like that up to try and make your point stronger only has the opposite effect. I'd stick with the baseline facts if I were you, Michael. You might have more luck convincing those on the fence that Stride was a one-off.

Hey, if its a Ripper murder then a slang term for his activities would be "ripping" would it not?

Best regards Caz

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

". . . how is it possible to tell what direction she was facing at the point when he subdued her into passive submission?"

Subdued her? Have you watched my reenactment? She died roughly where she was.

Cheers.
LC

Sorry, I don't get what you mean, Lynn. Probably me being dense. If she wasn't already dead or unconscious when she was 'lain gently down', he couldn't have lain her gently down without her creating a fuss. But I thought her throat was cut when she was lying down, or just possibly while he was lowering her to the ground - in which case he must have subdued her somehow first, while she was upright. Are you saying he cut her throat while she was upright?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The evidence is that someone identified as Israel Schwartz made a statement to the police that Sunday night in which he claims to have seen and heard a scuffle between the murdered woman and a Broadshoulderd assailant at around 12:45, almost in front of the gates. That witness statement and its provider were not presented at the Inquest into the woman's murder, according to available documents. Not one other witness in the area saw or heard any of what Schwartz describes.

My conclusion based on the above is that Schwartz'z story, despite being supported internally by some authorities, was deemed as irrelevant to the discussions as to how this woman encountered her death, something that would suggest disbelief in his story, considering the nature of his story...its timing and locale, would be of paramount importance if believed. I dont know why they would disbelieve him, I could understand a connection to the club as being a possible reason.

Hi Mike,

If they deemed Schwartz's story as irrelevant, it could be because he didn't actually witness the murder, but what could they do if nobody matching the description he gave could be found? If they didn't believe him, don't you think they would have made it very much their business to find out why he had invented the whole BS scenario? Surely that would in itself have been seen as potentially highly significant, if they were not complete fools?

Hey, if its a Ripper murder then a slang term for his activities would be "ripping" would it not?

In the same sense that Peter Sutcliffe was called the Yorkshire Ripper, but didn't feel he had to slavishly live up to his nickname and rip each victim, I guess.

You accused us here of calling the Stride murder a "ripping" and then tried to rip the 'inclusion' theory to shreds on that basis. But nobody describes this murder as a "ripping", any more than they would describe a Sutcliffe murder as such, when he took a hammer to a victim's head and did no ripping at all. It doesn't mean you can take "the ripper" out of the frame and put someone else in, without some basis for suspecting them.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

roughly parallel

Hello Tom. Thanks. Yes, roughly parallel to the club, with, as you say, a very slight angle.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

See my reenactment.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"But I thought her throat was cut when she was lying down, or just possibly while he was lowering her to the ground . . . "

Good!

". . . - in which case he must have subdued her somehow first, while she was upright."

See my reenactment.

"Are you saying he cut her throat while she was upright?"

See my reenactment.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, Stride's throat was cut after she was on the ground, almost certainly unconscious. This means she had to have been subdued first. I've not seen any of Lynn's 're-enactments', though.

Caz,

You're debating Michael Richards. Why? Just curious.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

The time has come, the Walrus said . . .

Hello Tom. Try this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a95rqNxxbiM

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Caz,

You're debating Michael Richards. Why? Just curious.

Beats me. 'Cause I'm a dozy cow with too much time on my hands? That's all I can put it down to.

I'll try harder to resist next time. Life's too short.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"But I thought her throat was cut when she was lying down, or just possibly while he was lowering her to the ground . . . "

Good!

". . . - in which case he must have subdued her somehow first, while she was upright."

See my reenactment.

"Are you saying he cut her throat while she was upright?"

See my reenactment.

Cheers.
LC

Just watched it, Lynn. Thanks - I think.

If this is how it happened, fair enough. It gives you an idea of which way she was facing when her swift and deadly efficient assailant suddenly went into murder mode with no warning, giving her no time to scream.

I'm still not sure why he wouldn't have been able to lay her on the ground in any position he chose, which would then give us no clue in which direction she was headed when he took her so completely unawares.

Love,

Caz
X