The Murder of Elizabeth Stride

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think it is a natural reaction to try to catch yourself with your hands when you fall. So the cachous (which were loosely wrapped) would have to withstand the impact of the fall. But more importantly we have to figure out how Liz got from the street into the yard where she was found. Would she have gone voluntarily with the BS man who has just thrown her to the ground and threatened Schwartz? That seems unlikely. Now if she is dragged by the BS man and she makes any attempt to fend him off, the cachous have to withstand that as well. That would make them pretty resilient breath mints. To me, it indicates that she only took them out when the BS man had left the scene and she felt safe.

c.d.

Perhaps Schwartz said: "pushed her into the passage", as reported by The Star, rather than Swanson's version. It's a possibility.

Regardless, I think that the cachous being in the hand suggests (strongly) that it was a surprise attack, which in turn suggests BS is not your man for this job.

[mariab]

Finally, I KNOW you are not "knocking" my ideas. You criticise, but only to learn--as I do. Frankly, I criticise my own ideas more than anyone else could. Constructive criticism is a good thing.

Absolutely, Lynn. And we'll be researching things together. (Hope this doesn't sound too “Kumba-ya“ like.)

[lynn cates]

Coke

Hello Maria. I would have suggested, "I'd like to buy the world a Coke." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Is that a quote or a slogan? :-)

[lynn cates]

sing it!

Hello Maria. It's a song--became a slogan.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

Theory versus evidence.Obviously the latter is preferable,but where evidence is lacking,it is common sense to theorise where evidence may be gained.It is then a matter of proving the theory.In the case of Stride ,theory must be predominent,as what evidence there is,is little and confusing.My theory is that Pipeman was more likely to have been her killer.That he was also the man seen by Brown in the company of Stride.That he was a person,who having shown no harm minutes before in another location,was a person she would have trusted after the incident with BS. A person who could take her by surprise,and the element of surprise,I theorise,played an important part in her death.But how to prove it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Theory versus evidence.Obviously the latter is preferable,but where evidence is lacking,it is common sense to theorise where evidence may be gained.It is then a matter of proving the theory.In the case of Stride ,theory must be predominent,as what evidence there is,is little and confusing.My theory is that Pipeman was more likely to have been her killer.That he was also the man seen by Brown in the company of Stride.That he was a person,who having shown no harm minutes before in another location,was a person she would have trusted after the incident with BS. A person who could take her by surprise,and the element of surprise,I theorise,played an important part in her death.But how to prove it?

I would fully agree that Pipeman is more likely. But how likely does that make him? Not very, because BS man is simply so unlikely due to the cachous in hand. Also, no other witnesses see a tall man with the victims.

It doesn't have to have been someone who rescued Stride, unless you propose that JTR's MO was to target victims who were being attacked by someone else.

Prostitutes would have been prepared to go with almost anyone - that was their business.

[c.d.]

I was crossing the street yesterday with the walk sign when someone in a car made a left turn just missing me. I looked at him directly, said "hey assh*le, and made a gesture with my hand. The look, the word and the gesture all went together. That seems to be a natural reaction. If Schwartz was intimidated, I have to believe that there was more to it than just hearing a word like "Lizzie."

c.d.

[curious4]

Quote Curious:
He said it at the inquest on Liz Stride - after performing the autopsy.

Curious,
the different newspapers have reported slightly different versions of the Stride inquest. Tom Wescott is absolutely correct in what he said to you last night. And at this point and as I've noticed on many occasions, Tom is much better acquainted with the entirety of the newspaper reports pertaining to Berner Street than myself or than anyone else, so we're really talking expert's opinion here. (While I hope to be going through these same reports in a couple weeks myself.)

Hello Maria,

I say again, if and when you find anything which will clarify this, please point me in the right direction. I have read a good many of the newspaper reports but may well have missed something.

Regards,
C4

[mariab]

I was crossing the street yesterday with the walk sign when someone in a car made a left turn just missing me. I looked at him directly, said "hey assh*le, and made a gesture with my hand. The look, the word and the gesture all went together. That seems to be a natural reaction. If Schwartz was intimidated, I have to believe that there was more to it than just hearing a word like "Lizzie."

Absolutely, C.D.. The “Lizzie“ debate is a very resistant old canard.

Hello Maria,
I say again, if and when you find anything which will clarify this, please point me in the right direction. I have read a good many of the newspaper reports but may well have missed something.

I won't be able to indulge in a comprehensive newspaper search before late June at the earliest, but it seems like Tom has something. I'm sure he'll clarify, when he finds some time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott
I can see where C4 is coming with his idea that Phillips might have been comparing the bruising to cases from his past, based on the material C4 is using as his source. That's why it's so necessary to read ALL the papers who offered their own coverage of the inquests. Doing so, you will see that there's no question of what Dr. Phillips is saying - he noticed the bruising appear and get progressively more pronounced.

[harry]

Fleetwood,
No I am not assuming there was any rescue on the part of Pipeman,or that 'rescue' was an MO that was used to gain victims attention.It is simply that Pipeman,in Strides case,was in a position to approach her after BS left,offer help,and if being the man seen in her company by Brown,being accepted as someone she could trust. While the question of height of Pipeman is something that has to be considered,it is only one of many quetionable statements by Schwartz that can never be answered as to it's accuracy.

[Chadwick]

Forensic pathologist

Absolutely, C.D.. The “Lizzie“ debate is a very resistant old canard.



I won't be able to indulge in a comprehensive newspaper search before late June at the earliest, but it seems like Tom has something. I'm sure he'll clarify, when he finds some time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott
I can see where C4 is coming with his idea that Phillips might have been comparing the bruising to cases from his past, based on the material C4 is using as his source. That's why it's so necessary to read ALL the papers who offered their own coverage of the inquests. Doing so, you will see that there's no question of what Dr. Phillips is saying - he noticed the bruising appear and get progressively more pronounced.

I was very impressed with Dr. Phillips' testimony and his skill as an observer in this matter. If you note, he seems to actually confirm, independently, Schwartz' account by both the bruises that appeared postmortem and by seeing scattered cachous in the gutter. It would seem that Liz may have had more than what was found in her hand and lost them in the attack near the street. I would think that Dr. Phillips would have made a fine forensic pathologist, had he lived in our time. However, we have the benefit of his keen observations.

[Stewart P Evans]

Abandon

Perhaps Schwartz said: "pushed her into the passage", as reported by The Star, rather than Swanson's version. It's a possibility.
...

We have the police reports on the Schwartz incident and we have the Star version.

If you abandon the official version in preference for the press version you either have some personal idea or theory to pursue (that the press version better fits) or you do not realise the quality of historical evidence. Either way you might as well give up on ever reaching a well-founded conclusion.

[mariab]

(...)seeing scattered cachous in the gutter. It would seem that Liz may have had more than what was found in her hand and lost them in the attack near the street.

It appears that Dr. Johnston, while briefly examining and “handling“ Stride's body, opened her hands, moved some of the cachous, then repositioned them in her hand.
According to Diemshitz:
Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats (...)
While Dr. Blackwell, who attended at the body as next, found Stride's hands "slightly open“ vs. “tightly clenched“.

[curious4]

It appears that Dr. Johnston, while briefly examining and “handling“ Stride's body, opened her hands, moved some of the cachous, then repositioned them in her hand.
According to Diemshitz:
Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats (...)
While Dr. Blackwell, who attended at the body as next, found Stride's hands "slightly open“ vs. “tightly clenched“.

Hello Maria,

In the Times´ account Johnston doesn´t touch the hands other than to feel them to see if they were warm. Phillips removes the cachous from her hand and I seem to remember that the packet broke because she was clutching them so tightly.

Your round (lol)
C4

Incidentally, the coroner in his summing up mentions that Dr Blackwell could not be sure how old the bruising was. This, I think, points to the fact that the bruising was important, that is, that similar marks had been seen on the other victims.