Did jack kill liz stride?

[DVV]

Lynn,

it's night now, and Joe O'Fleming the terrorist is still a fantasy...

Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Its easy to keep straight if you remember that choking doesnt require external pressures or stimuli and strangulation does....that she choked while he pulled the scarf, if as Blackwell suggests, is a function of the act, not something unto itself.

I discovered a quote from PC Lamb that says he went up to William Wess and Dr Phillips by the body after he had done his preliminary search....so perhaps by 1:45ish...maybe 2am? Does anyone recall reading where someone was sent to get Wess at home? He says he left at 12:15am.

If someone was sent to get him it would be from the club, and its my understanding that the front door remained locked and the gates were closed at approx 1:10am. If someone was sent after that time it would have had to be cleared with the Police and they would have been let out and the door re-secured behind them...Im sure "no-one leaves until were finished our inquiries" was the SOP. Or the Police themselves might have gone. I just dont recall reading how he re-appears around 1:45am or 2am.

Best regards all.

[lynn cates]

Rome

Hello DVV. Well, how long was Rome in building?

The best.
LC

[Archaic]

Hello Archaic. Splendid! But that may be question number 2. First, I'd like to know what Tony Harnishfeger and his girlfriend were doing at St. Francis Dam 45 minutes before it failed on March 12, 1928, at 11:57:30 PM. Does one just stand watching a failing dam for 45 minutes? (Oops! This more difficult mystery is from a former life.)

Gosh, Lynn, you should have asked me sooner- that one's EASY.

They were watching the Submarine Races.

Got any more Big Questions?

At your service, Archaic

[lynn cates]

answer

Hello Archaic. So THAT'S it? Thanks!

The best.
LC

[DVV]

Hello DVV. Well, how long was Rome in building?

The best.
LC

I don't know, Lynn.
Does your question include the suburbs?
In any case, it can't take longer than with Italian masons.

Remember, Lynn, at the end of the world, there is a wall, and behind it, an Italian mason.

Amitiés,
David

[lynn cates]

Eternal City

Hello DVV. Well, it IS the Eternal City.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Its easy to keep straight if you remember that choking doesnt require external pressures or stimuli and strangulation does....that she choked while he pulled the scarf, if as Blackwell suggests, is a function of the act, not something unto itself.

I discovered a quote from PC Lamb that says he went up to William Wess and Dr Phillips by the body after he had done his preliminary search....so perhaps by 1:45ish...maybe 2am? Does anyone recall reading where someone was sent to get Wess at home? He says he left at 12:15am.

If someone was sent to get him it would be from the club, and its my understanding that the front door remained locked and the gates were closed at approx 1:10am. If someone was sent after that time it would have had to be cleared with the Police and they would have been let out and the door re-secured behind them...Im sure "no-one leaves until were finished our inquiries" was the SOP. Or the Police themselves might have gone. I just dont recall reading how he re-appears around 1:45am or 2am.

Best regards all.

Is nobody interested in thread related content anymore?

Cheers mates

[DVV]

Hello DVV. Well, it IS the Eternal City.

The best.
LC

You can say it again.
Cheers!

edit: hope The Good Michael will see that

[Sox]

I cant believe I have to address a counter argument that could have been prevented by reading Inquest transcripts....as I suggested in the first place...

From Blackwell...."The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side."

and Blackwell again...

"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 her 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. "

By putting 1 and 2 together you should see that by grabbing a scarf and twisting it from behind the killer "chokes" the victim, its not rocket science.

You can add that Phillips also saw no similarity with the skill and knowledge he observed in the first 2 murders.

There is no debate...she was grabbed by her scarf, it was twisted....which closes her airway....just like "choking".

Best regards

Lets take a close look shall we Michael.

First of all, stop selective quoting. You and Blackwell are of the opinion that she was pulled by her scarf, Phillips is of the opinion that she was forced to the ground by her shoulders. Blackwell says that she could have had her throat cut while standing OR while she was prone.

What is a fact (note fact, not an opinion) is that Liz Strides body bore no signs of her being strangled. And while we are on the subject of 'strangled' Michael.....

strangle verb:
to kill someone by pressing their throat so that they cannot breathe

choke verb:
If you choke, or if something chokes you, you stop breathing because something is blocking your throat.

...same thing Michael.

Blackwell says the bow was tight, that IS quite clear for anyone to read as long as they read what is on the page, that is (to use a phrase you yourself are fond of) physical evidence, the bow on her scarf was knotted tightly. He then goes on to give his opinion that the killer probably pulled Liz back using her scarf.

Of course, the bow on her scarf could not possibly have been that way because that is how Liz tied it in the first place now could it

[Chadwick]

Down and Out

Lets take a close look shall we Michael.

First of all, stop selective quoting. You and Blackwell are of the opinion that she was pulled by her scarf, Phillips is of the opinion that she was forced to the ground by her shoulders. Blackwell says that she could have had her throat cut while standing OR while she was prone.

What is a fact (note fact, not an opinion) is that Liz Strides body bore no signs of her being strangled. And while we are on the subject of 'strangled' Michael.....

strangle verb:
to kill someone by pressing their throat so that they cannot breathe

choke verb:
If you choke, or if something chokes you, you stop breathing because something is blocking your throat.

...same thing Michael.

Blackwell says the bow was tight, that IS quite clear for anyone to read as long as they read what is on the page, that is (to use a phrase you yourself are fond of) physical evidence, the bow on her scarf was knotted tightly. He then goes on to give his opinion that the killer probably pulled Liz back using her scarf.

Of course, the bow on her scarf could not possibly have been that way because that is how Liz tied it in the first place now could it

I've been reading through everyone's interesting thoughts here and gone back to Blackwell's testimony to see something which may set a burning issue to rest.

Liz Stride was on the ground when her throat was cut. According to Blackwell, there was no blood on her dress nor on her shoes, only on one hand.

Had her killer been behind her, as has been speculated, and had cut her throat while she stood, blood, from her body's natural pressure, would have spurted out, would have gushed down her dress. There was no blood on her dress. Therefore, she had to have been down, on her side for the blood flows to be as depicted in the doctor's, and everyone who was on the scene's, testimony. I know he said he could have started the cutting while she fell, but why?

Diemshutz was unaware of what he had come upon in the darkness of that area. It would have been easy for the killer, who must have moved quickly from the body down the wall of the club(and startled the horse), to have exited behind the cart, when Diemshutz's attentions were on focused on the shock of finding a woman's body.

Given the facts from those who were there, it is no stretch to see that this murder, which seemed to be in an ideal place for her killer's purposes at first, was interrupted. It is well worth speculating that he was in the process of slitting her throat when the trap drew close, even began its turn. This may account for the distracted way in which he cut her, not making it as deep, as thorough a job, as he had when he could concentrate on his efforts.

We can guess about a lot of things, but the evidence shows that Liz was down and on her side when he began to cut her. The laws of anatomy and gravity cannot be countermanded.

Whether he choked her down with her scarf or forced her down by threat with his knife, I think Liz had hope for life. She was a woman of little means and few possesions. Grasping those candies in her hand speaks with sad pathos her desperate cling to life; that this was not the end. She may well have been dying as that trap entered the gate and help seemed on the way. The driver did not realize the gravity of the moment until it was too late for her and her killer had slipped away in the darkness.

I don't think the evidence proves that JTR could not have been the one. Indeed, if Catherine Eddowes had not been murdered soon afterwards, one could make the case more strongly for it to be someone else. The fact that the Ripper was out on the streets that night, looking to ply his evil intent, demonstrates that the chances of Stride's murder being his doing much more plausible.

I have no problem including her in the cannonical grouping.

Best to you,
~Chadwick

[FrankO]

What you say about opinions and facts is obviously right, Sox.

However, Blackwell didn't just refer to the bow as having been pulled very tight. He also deposed: "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 her throat in that way." Which made the coroner ask: "Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out?"

Best,
Frank

[DVV]

Whether he ....... or forced her down by threat with his knife, I think Liz had hope for life.

~Chadwick

Hi Chadwick,

that's a very sensible suggestion to me. And can explain many things.

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

What you say about opinions and facts is obviously right, Sox.

However, Blackwell didn't just refer to the bow as having been pulled very tight. He also deposed: "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 her throat in that way." Which made the coroner ask: "Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out?"

Best,
Frank

Hiya Frank, that's exactly my point. Although Blackwell was giving testimony at an inquest his is still giving his opinion, he is not stating hard facts gained from physical evidence. My point is this:

There are no abrasions noted in the post mortem that point to Liz being pulled around or down by her scarf, hence me saying that it could just as easily have been tight because she herself tied it like that. Blackwell is second guessing, just as we are.

We cannot look at statements like Blackwells, "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 her throat in that way." and state it as fact, just because it is in the official files. Opinion & probably are words of note. He tells us that the bow on her scarf was tight, fair enough I accept that, it is physical evidence. But the rest is just his opinion, nothing more.

[FrankO]

There are no abrasions noted in the post mortem that point to Liz being pulled around or down by her scarf, hence me saying that it could just as easily have been tight because she herself tied it like that. Blackwell is second guessing, just as we are.

Hi Sox,

I was purely putting forward what I did, because you seemed to be suggesting that Blackwell had stated that only the bow was tight, and not necessarily the whole scarf.

Again, you're right in saying that it was just Blackwell's opinion, no more - but no less either. If you'd ask me which opinion would fit better with the evidence - Blackwell's or Phillips' - then I'd say Blackwell's. That could easily explain her lying on her left side and only her left side being muddied, the cachous remaining in her hand, and the probable absense of screams, while Phillips' opinion does not. But that's just my opinion, of course.

Best,
Frank