A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"Ah, but Fisherman, Liz was a known prostitute standing by herself late at night. Quite a different scenario from her standing in the midst of a Sunday church crowd at noon. You said yourself that aggressive punters come with the territory."

I did, and I meant it. But for your bar robbing scenario to be comparable, you still need me to interact with the bar keeper in a fashion that could be interpreted as a beginning bar robbery, does it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Ok, Fish. Try this on for size. A few minutes before the bar is robbed, a man comes in and asks for change for the cigarette machine. The bartender says sorry we don't give out change. The man responds by cussing him out and shoving him before he exits. Enter the robber a few minutes later. Neither man is aware of the other.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Robert. Cross did indeed hope to come cross a copper. He did. So did the boys from the club.

Why back date it? I presume to cover the gap in time by the war counsel. In retrospect, was it needed? Maybe not.

How was it perceived by the boys?

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

I get a kind of picture here, with Diemschutz coming into the club and saying, "A woman's been murdered in our yard."

So someone says, "Better call the police I suppose."

"Not so fast!" cries D. "We need to sit down and ponder the implications for the club. We're in the sh*t."

So they ponder for 15 minutes and then decide to do what they might have been expected to do in the first place, except that by now they've invented a cover story so that they won't have to explain why they didn't do what they might have been expected to do in the first place.

Their wives and sweethearts were at the club, and it's a fair bet that their forcefully given opinions would have occupied about 12 minutes of the 15 minutes discussion time. That doesn't leave much time for the club members to have their say.

[c.d.]

If their story is proven to be a cover up, they are in even deeper trouble, legal as well as public relations wise.

c.d.

[Robert]

Well, they'd be for the high jump if there were police spies in their ranks. I think Lynn suggested that this possibility was something that was playing on their minds.

We're not talking of a small autocratic Leninist central committee making the decision here. We're talking about a fairly well-attended social evening.

[lynn cates]

deliberation

Hello Robert. The deliberation was likely 10, plus or minus 5 minutes. Amongst other items, a plausible one would have been, "Let's scoop up the poor devil and tote her away in my cart." "No, that won't work. What do we do with all that blood in the yard? And, if I'm caught with her, I'll hang." Well, you get the idea.

What was settled? Well, 2 of them decided that they were in the yard around 12:40 and saw nothing. "Wait, what if some proof is found to the contrary?" "Right. Very well, we're pretty sure that there was not a body in the yard at that time." And various other loose ends were tied up.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

paradigms

Hello CD, Robert, Fish et al. As I see it, there are no fewer that 3 distinct paradigms about Berner st, each of which has distinctive pros and cons.

#1 Liz is soliciting by the gates. ”Jack” accosts her, they enter the yard, and the rest is history.

#2 Liz has an encounter with a domestic partner, they enter the yard to discuss their situation. At some point the partner becomes outraged and kills Liz.

#3 Liz is to meet someone at the club. She does; seconds later wishes she hadn’t.

Pro: In #1 (by far the most popular) advantage is taken of the fact that Liz was registered in Sweden as a prostitute. It coincides with our need to have a mysterious sexual serial killer who kills prostitutes. It also explains why Liz is in Berner st—she hopes for good trade from the “convention” taking place inside.

Con: Although this scenario would be more plausible if Liz had never tried the area before, it still suffers from the simple fact that it was a TERRIBLE place to solicit. 4d from impoverished socialists and their guests, many of whom were greeners and sweaters? No, it was all they could do to afford their favourite vice—gambling. Surely Liz would have realised her error around 11:30 when many of the chaps walked past her with a chuckle.

Then there is the attempt to reconstruct, forensically, the purported event. It plain does not work.

Pro: In #2, I have seen some excellent reconstructions. Fish’s reconstruction pretty well does all that needs to be done, except . . .

Con: explain how the devil Liz met her domestic partner so far from Flower and Dean (or even Dorset) st. Otherwise, this is fairly believable.

Pro: In #3, the event centres round Liz having a meeting with someone at the club at 12:30. She tries the door. It is locked. As she walks away, a club member sees her (not to mention PC Smith) and, ascertaining that she wishes to meet X, points her to the side door. He leaves; she enters the yard. Liz meets her assailant, they walk towards the gates, she pauses to retrieve the cachous, he grabs her scarf, rotates Liz, cuts. This all fits like a hand in a glove. But,

Con: I need to identify precisely who this bloke, this anarchist agent provocateur, was. Did Liz work for him? Did he know that she was fluent in Yiddish? Were the police at some time or other (clearly, not THAT night) offering her spare change for keeping an ear open?

All these views have something to recommend them and no one is irrational to accept any of them. But, personally, to save my soul, I can’t buy #1. #2 requires a good explanation to make me comfortable with a random encounter.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Well, I'm going back through the mists of time but I seem to remember RJ Palmer suggesting that this could well have been an attack by Kidney, who was round the corner in Devonshire St. Anyway, the opinion I came to in the end (and still hold) is that Stride was more likely to have been a Ripper victim than not to have been, but that she isn't such a certainty that info from her murder can be safely used in trying to solve the other murders.

I think she was attacked by BS who then went away, and enter Jack. I'll let the rest of you hammer that one out, since my main interest at present is your Schwarz theory.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Liz may not have gone to Berner steet with the intention of soliciting but found herself there for some reason and decided any port in a storm. I don't think it was such a bad place to do so. It's not like she was a high priced call girl. Think of cab drivers who find out when a play ends and pull up in front of the theater at that time. At Berner street. lots of potential customers and you are playing the law of averages.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Why does a forensic reconstruction of no. 1 not work?

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello CD, Robert, Fish et al. As I see it, there are no fewer that 3 distinct paradigms about Berner st, each of which has distinctive pros and cons.

#1 Liz is soliciting by the gates. ”Jack” accosts her, they enter the yard, and the rest is history.

#2 Liz has an encounter with a domestic partner, they enter the yard to discuss their situation. At some point the partner becomes outraged and kills Liz.

#3 Liz is to meet someone at the club. She does; seconds later wishes she hadn’t.

Pro: In #1 (by far the most popular) advantage is taken of the fact that Liz was registered in Sweden as a prostitute. It coincides with our need to have a mysterious sexual serial killer who kills prostitutes. It also explains why Liz is in Berner st—she hopes for good trade from the “convention” taking place inside.

Con: Although this scenario would be more plausible if Liz had never tried the area before, it still suffers from the simple fact that it was a TERRIBLE place to solicit. 4d from impoverished socialists and their guests, many of whom were greeners and sweaters? No, it was all they could do to afford their favourite vice—gambling. Surely Liz would have realised her error around 11:30 when many of the chaps walked past her with a chuckle.

Then there is the attempt to reconstruct, forensically, the purported event. It plain does not work.

Pro: In #2, I have seen some excellent reconstructions. Fish’s reconstruction pretty well does all that needs to be done, except . . .

Con: explain how the devil Liz met her domestic partner so far from Flower and Dean (or even Dorset) st. Otherwise, this is fairly believable.

Pro: In #3, the event centres round Liz having a meeting with someone at the club at 12:30. She tries the door. It is locked. As she walks away, a club member sees her (not to mention PC Smith) and, ascertaining that she wishes to meet X, points her to the side door. He leaves; she enters the yard. Liz meets her assailant, they walk towards the gates, she pauses to retrieve the cachous, he grabs her scarf, rotates Liz, cuts. This all fits like a hand in a glove. But,

Con: I need to identify precisely who this bloke, this anarchist agent provocateur, was. Did Liz work for him? Did he know that she was fluent in Yiddish? Were the police at some time or other (clearly, not THAT night) offering her spare change for keeping an ear open?

All these views have something to recommend them and no one is irrational to accept any of them. But, personally, to save my soul, I can’t buy #1. #2 requires a good explanation to make me comfortable with a random encounter.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn....

If we believe Schwartz's account was an invention...which I do....

Then Fanny Mortimer is probably accurate with her times.....and sees nothing after the 'heavy measured tramp' of a policeman walking past...she's at the door at 12.45ish to 12.55ish...two doors up from Dutfield's Yard....the fella getting his supper hears nothing at 12.40ish....the couple...both before and after the murder hear nothing......PC Smith sees nothing...probably there at around 12.40 given his mistake with his beat at 1am.....he sees a couple and he thinks the woman is Stride......so this killer kills pretty silently...

The question is: for someone to kill in a fashion where no one else hears a thing.....does this suggest one person only....and if it's one person...then why a cover up?

The only logical solution is in order to place the murder outside of the club and prevent suspicion falling on the club.....even though it had nothing to do with the club....and Schwartz was paid a few bob into the bargain.

If you take Schwartz out of the equation and look at PC Smith's time and consider he was out..if Diemschutz found the body at 1am...then PC Smith is there around 1.05-1.10am...then everything fits...except Schwartz.

[lynn cates]

#1

Hello Robert. I get the feeling that a consensus of those who adopt #1 follow roughly the same lines you articulated above. Usually, the story runs that Jack comforted Liz after BS man, then attacked.

But you are right, Schwartz is our main concern now.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

scenarios

Hello CD. Well, try it. Liz and her assailant go into the yard. She does a military about face while her trailing client goes beyond her then stops. Liz grabs the gate with her right hand, preparing to create space for her and her customer. All the while, she reaches with her left hand for the cachous. (Perhaps she expects pain and needs to "bite the bullet"?) Not good?

Alright, try this. Liz is to perform oral sex on her assailant. The cachous is to improve the taste. Very well.

Question--cachous before or after the act?

If before, then "Jack" wouldn't need to find an escape route. Immediately upon penetration he would jump over the 3 story club and run yelping down Berner st, not stopping til he reached Upper Holloway.

If after, would they not be facing one another? Why do a 180 away from Jack to retrieve the cachous?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Schwartz

Hello Mac. I agree about Schwartz. So you seem to agree with me.

If I were you, I'd turn back before it's too late. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC