Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Cogidubnus]

People think I'm crank enough already though, don't they?

DW

[Cogidubnus]

Possibly (says he cagily)...

[lynn cates]

a thought

Hello Dave.

"In Russia the campaigning journalist cum crime reporter Vladimir Gilyarovsky has just, the previous year, published "The Stories of the Slums"...is AF, a more humble revolutionary publication, attempting to associate itself with a more renowned name in campaigning?

Incidentally Russian government censors suppressed the Gilyarovsky book and burned the whole edition...."

Umm, you thinking what I'm thinking?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

Blood flow stops with cardiac arrest. But blood remains subject to the force of gravity, so if the body is in the right position it will continue to trickle from a wound after the heart has stopped.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Did the yard slope from the street down to the drain? I would suggeet it did, as Liz Stride's blood flowed away from her in the direction of the drain. So she lay in the correct position for blood to trickle after death. But surely if she had been murdered at 12:45 a.m. by 1:05 a.m. wouldn't clotting have arrested the flow? We need an expert.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

I do not know much about this sort of medical thing. How long would blood continue to flow after death? What does this mean anyway? Does it mean that the blood had not coagulated? My initial thought is that Stride didn't die immediately, and that Schwartz's 12:45 estimate may have been wrong.

Rob H

Hi Rob.

The key word here I believe is "flowing". I stand to be corrected but I'd say that any blood flow would have ceased very shortlly after Liz Stride died. Considering the injury, I'd also say that she would have been dead within a few minutes of recieving the injury. If Schwarz's timing was out, then that's a different kettle of fish. What leads you to believe that Schwartz was mistaken regarding the time he witnessed the attack ?

Regards

Observer

[Cogidubnus]

Vladimir?

If Kozebrodsky and Gilyarovsky are one and the same (as would seem likely by many of the similarities as alleged of their movements) why do you suppose that particular pseudonym?

In Russia the campaigning journalist cum crime reporter Vladimir Gilyarovsky has just, the previous year, published "The Stories of the Slums"...is AF, a more humble revolutionary publication, attempting to associate itself with a more renowned name in campaigning?

Incidentally Russian government censors suppressed the Gilyarovsky book and burned the whole edition....

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

In other words Schwartz thou art translated...

Dave

[lynn cates]

The answer is . . .

Hello Caroline.

"Why would he imagine that unless he went along with it he'd be apprehended as the chased away murderer if he hadn't been chased at all or hadn't even been there?"

Here's a coincidence. My answer was based upon your hypothesis, and yours upon mine. Personally, if the story was made up--as I suspect--he may not even have known about it. And the language barrier a boon. As in:

Wess: "Hey Izzie, this copper wants your Aunt Rebekah's recipe for knish. I'll translate.

Israel: (in Yiddish) "Sure thing. Take half a cup of . . ."

Later:

Wess. "Hey Izzie, that recipe is in demand. Now this nice reporter wants it."

"But if the club was behind either of the chase stories, or knew the woman was dead by 12.45 but needed that extra quarter of an hour to decide what to do, why did the AF put her death that early and not much nearer to 1am, to tie in neatly with the pony and cart and help cover up this alleged delay in sounding the alarm?"

I attribute that to a pure blunder. Not all club lads and lasses had attended the "pow wow" I should think. And really, what's the harm? Apparently nothing.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Your questions have hit upon the key to the Berner Street timing.

Why 1.00 am? Why not 12.45 am?

Drop any preconceptions and keep going.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"The Schwartz sceptics may have a problem here, because if he had heard the rumour, would he really have put himself in the position of the man assumed to be the killer running away?"

Well, for the sake of argument, would that not be preferable to being thought the chased away murderer and later to be apprehended as such? In other words, IF this were the case, it would be like Leon Goldstein coming forward and admitting he was in the area WITH a black bag in hand. Ultimately, the better of two bad options.

"Hindsight tells us that if a witness had chased off the killer after the act, that witness would presumably have seen the act, which doesn't seem feasible. Certainly nobody raised the alarm for another quarter of an hour."

But if the hierarchy at the club had discovered a murder had taken place just outside their door, would it not be prudent to confer a bit about what to do before sounding the alarm? For example, they might wonder whether to remove the body, conceal it, etc. so that they were not suspected. (Of course, they would eventually reject such ideas.) Recall: the lads believed themselves watched by the police.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

By 'Schwartz sceptics' I meant those who think he made the whole thing up (on the club's behalf?) to suggest a tipsy anti-Semitic thug as the killer rather than a club attendee. Why would he imagine that unless he went along with it he'd be apprehended as the chased away murderer if he hadn't been chased at all or hadn't even been there? I'm just saying it was a risky tale to make up once the rumour was in place that the murderer was seen at 12.45 being chased away from the scene of crime. All well and good if he was not making it up and had either not heard the rumour or felt the need to explain what the chase was really about (like Hutchinson perhaps).

But if the club was behind either of the chase stories, or knew the woman was dead by 12.45 but needed that extra quarter of an hour to decide what to do, why did the AF put her death that early and not much nearer to 1am, to tie in neatly with the pony and cart and help cover up this alleged delay in sounding the alarm? And why wasn't Schwartz told to say he saw the woman assaulted just before 1?

Also, would it not have been terribly risky to even think of mucking about with the times or the crime scene if they thought for one second that the police might be watching their movements?

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

Blood flow stops with cardiac arrest. But blood remains subject to the force of gravity, so if the body is in the right position it will continue to trickle from a wound after the heart has stopped.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi Observer,

I do not know much about this sort of medical thing. How long would blood continue to flow after death? What does this mean anyway? Does it mean that the blood had not coagulated? My initial thought is that Stride didn't die immediately, and that Schwartz's 12:45 estimate may have been wrong.

Rob H

[Observer]

The murder was clearly "interrupted" by Schwartz and Pipeman at 12:45... not by Diemshitz at 1am. It amazes me that people fail to realize this.

Hi Rob

How do you account for Spooner's testimony when he described liquid blood still flowing from the wound at 1:05 a.m. approx?

[Coroner] Was any blood coming from the throat?

Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.

Would Liz Stride's throat be bleeding 20 minutes after she was murdered?

Spooner also noted the cachous in Liz's hand, the first to do so. This would suggest that he was a very attentive witness, and I can see no reason to doubt that he did see blood flowing from Liz's throat 4 or 5 minutes after Diemschutz discovered Liz.

Regards

Observer

[robhouse]

The murder was clearly "interrupted" by Schwartz and Pipeman at 12:45... not by Diemshitz at 1am. It amazes me that people fail to realize this.

Tom, you said:
"If someone else witnessed it, this person was not seen by Schwartz and was completely forgotten by Abberline and his superiors by the time of the Oct. 16th Swanson report and the ensuing exchange it inspired. "

What about Pipeman? Surely he also witnessed it.

Incidentally, I am not convinced that Pipeman "chased" Schwartz at all, although that is what Schwartz seemed to believe at first.

[Hunter]

And by the way Cris (or anyone else experienced for that matter), could you please comment on this from the other Stride thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman
I think the reason Schwartz was not called was because he had spoken to the press before he was due to appear.
What do you think of this, Hunter? Mortimer and Packer (who talked to the press) weren't called either, though for obvious reasons. Do you see a legal reason to not subpoena a witness having talked to the press in Victorian England? In the US today it frequently happens like this.

Hi Maria,

Just caught this. Both threads have meandered quite a bit and have moved quickly.

No, I don't believe Coroner Wynne Baxter would negate calling a witness simply because that person had talked to the press. It didn't make a difference in the Nichols or Chapman inquiries. In fact, Cadosch had been located by the press before either the police or Baxter's officer evidently knew about him. Both he and Mrs. Long testified near the end of the Chapman inquest.

We know that as late as Oct. 19th, the police considered Schwartz's 'police statement' viable and Abberline's Nov. 1st report gives no indication that police opinion of Schwartz's testimony had changed by then either. I believe Schwartz was not called by Baxter for the reason I stated on the other thread.