Stride Bruising

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz

I proposed the very same thing a long while ago. Needless to say it didn't go down very well!

I also supported the suggestion (that the killer placed the cachous in Liz Stride's hand) with the fact that Kate Eddowes thimble was found in the close proximity to one of her fingers. It's my belief that Eddowes killer actualy placed the thimble on her finger, it becoming dislodged by one of the persons who attended the scene shortly after her murder.

Add to this the fact that Annie Chapman's meagre belongings were placed neatly by her body, and we do indeed seem to have a "jolly " killer. I believe the man was taking the veritable urine.

Regards

Observer.

Hi Observer!

I think itīs a slightly bold suggestion that the thimble would have been on Kateīs finger and fallen off as she was tampered with. More likely, it was by her side from the outset.

But letīs assume that you are correct. Or letīs at least assume that the thimble was PLACED by her finger. And letīs assume that Chapmanīs gear was placed neatly by her body. And that Strideīs cachous was placed between her thumb and index finger. And, letīs not forget, that Kellyīs innards were placed between her feet (the liver) and as an improvised pillow, under her head.
Letīs assume that the killer was a "jolly" one, playing some sort of game if you will; how does that to your mind compare to the torso killer, distributing body parts, seemingly for jolly, playing some sort of game...?

Just thinking out loud here. It struck me that this may be some sort of a resemblance of a weird sense of humour or something such.

Thoughts?

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Caz

I proposed the very same thing a long while ago. Needless to say it didn't go down very well!

I also supported the suggestion (that the killer placed the cachous in Liz Stride's hand) with the fact that Kate Eddowes thimble was found in the close proximity to one of her fingers. It's my belief that Eddowes killer actualy placed the thimble on her finger, it becoming dislodged by one of the persons who attended the scene shortly after her murder.

Add to this the fact that Annie Chapman's meagre belongings were placed neatly by her body, and we do indeed seem to have a "jolly " killer. I believe the man was taking the veritable urine.

Regards

Observer.

[caz]

If the killer placed the cachous between Stride's fingers himself, after cutting her throat (as a final insult, perhaps, implying she needed them to freshen her breath?), it would remove the problem of her holding onto them while she was being assaulted and/or killed.

Another 'what if?' just for jolly.

After all, Eddowes's killer took precious time to nick her eyelids and he could have left the thimble by her side, which I seem to recall was associated with prostitution in some way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

If so, my money would be on Harvey.

[Bridewell]

The Macnaughten Memorandum isnt a diary entry and it states that 3 men were the most probable killer, none with any supporting hard evidence, and that "no-one saw the killer".

In the Aberconway version:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless pos-
sibly it was the City P.C. who was (on) a beat near Mitre Square)"

http://www.ripperologist.biz/aberconway/page6.jpg

Was that removed from the 'file' version because it was untrue or because it was a truth which it was deemed prudent to omit? Who knows, but the fact of the matter is that one version of the MM admits of the possibility that someone (a City P.C.) did see the murderer.

[Errata]

Hi all,

To answer a question you asked a few posts back Lynn....yes, I believe the shoulder pokes happened while Liz was holding her cashous. She went to move past him after the threats, maybe said something derogatory to him, and he grabbed her scarf as she began to leave...twist , slice, drop.

Well, we know that her "capture" and murder had to be one fluid motion, or she would have dropped the cachous. Not just to try and fight, thought that would be a natural conclusion, but also because jerking her around after the throat cut would knock the bag out of her hands. It's also how we know she didn't just drop to the ground. The impact would have sent the cachous flying. Cutting the vagus nerve could easily result in her muscles clenching, including her hand around the bag, but that would not persist if her arm whacked the ground from falling. She had to be lowered down. So the real question is why lower her to the ground instead of letting her fall, and if she was lowered, how did she end up on her side?

[DRoy]

Dave,

Obviously I can't prove it but I also don't think it can be. However, the timeline and what is said in the reports, it appears we interpret it different. Perhaps those you've named will provide an updated opinion which I'm sure they too will acknowledge is reasonable and possible.

All the best
DRoy

[DVV]

Hi Roy

Dave,

This is why as I mentioned before, Schwartz at one time was believed and his statement was thought to be important but eventually found out not to be.

DRoy

This I challenge you prove (as Anderson would exclaim).
Schwartz was considered, and is still considered a most important witness.
Unless I misread the sourcebook, Begg, SPE, Sugden, etc etc.

Cheers

[DRoy]

Dave,

Swanson's report came out almost two weeks after the inquest ended. If Schwartz gave any evidence at all at the inquest you'd assume it would be the same evidence he already gave. What new evidence would be learned from Schwartz at the inquest? Why would Swanson comment on what he'd already know?

This is why as I mentioned before, Schwartz at one time was believed and his statement was thought to be important but eventually found out not to be.

Anderson in his draft letter is only responding to Swanson's report regarding the word 'Lipski'. Anderson most likely assumed Schwartz would testify. Warren then follows the same incorrect assumption by Anderson. Swanson also doesn't say he believes Schwartz, his comment is based on the original statement apparently taken by Abberline.

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

David...you mentioned that the reference was in a memo to Home Office not some diary or some such thing.....as I mentioned, The Macnaughten Memorandum isnt a diary entry and it states that 3 men were the most probable killer, none with any supporting hard evidence, and that "no-one saw the killer". You can find an official who provides an official profile of the killer, and another who in essence says that profile is hogwash..he was unknown. These are not documents that represent THE official position...they are merely personal observations, and some are obviously incorrect.
Best regards

That's not the same Michael.
Macnaghten proposed 3 suspects that were, in his opinion, more likely to have committed the crimes than Cutbush. That's all.
With the 6th November report we are not dealing with his opinion. Warren is simply alluding to a fact - and quite a recent one : Schwartz' presence at the inquest.

All the best Michael.

[lynn cates]

choreography

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"I believe the shoulder pokes happened while Liz was holding her cashous. She went to move past him after the threats, maybe said something derogatory to him, and he grabbed her scarf as she began to leave...twist, slice, drop."

OK. Try this from beginning to end and more than once. If it holds up and seems natural, very well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

firsts

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, you know how temporal orderings go. It has been said of the American president, George Washington, he was first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.

But he married a widow. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To answer a question you asked a few posts back Lynn....yes, I believe the shoulder pokes happened while Liz was holding her cashous. She went to move past him after the threats, maybe said something derogatory to him, and he grabbed her scarf as she began to leave...twist , slice, drop.

I understand why some embrace the mention of the Inquest appearance as gospel, many things the investigators wrote and said have been treated with such kid gloves over the years. My point is that there is no evidence within any known police document that Israel was suppressed at the Inquest, and there is no evidence in any press coverage...not just Central Press issues...all the free press coverage, of an appearance of an Israel Schwartz at the Inquest, or the withholding of his evidence.

Since they did in fact put Mr Brown on the stand to allow him to say he believes he saw Liz Stride at 12:45 with a man near the School Board, one would think that the opportunity to present a contradictory story for that same time was clear. Yet it was not taken. Nor was any reference to Israel Schwartz made by the presiding authorities.

David...you mentioned that the reference was in a memo to Home Office not some diary or some such thing.....as I mentioned, The Macnaughten Memorandum isnt a diary entry and it states that 3 men were the most probable killer, none with any supporting hard evidence, and that "no-one saw the killer". You can find an official who provides an official profile of the killer, and another who in essence says that profile is hogwash..he was unknown. These are not documents that represent THE official position...they are merely personal observations, and some are obviously incorrect.

You can also find evidence that when the City conducted its Inquest a key witness was suppressed to some extent, and the Inquest and attendees were formally notified of that, and of the reason.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

Jon, I would say it's a fact (that Schwartz gave his evidence, but not in public).
Sometimes, unusual things do happen. That was also the case with Lawende and the description of Sailor Man.
Not usual. But that was the police choice. And the Coroner agreed.

Tchin-tchin

Hi David.

Yes, I agree we have the example of a witness being told to withold information from the public. The point is though, we read about it.
Also, we have another example of the courts being cleared of women and children, leaving just the jury, the Coroner, male members of the public and the press. Once again, we read about it.
Then we have an example of Dr. Phillips suggesting that his evidence should be given where only the Coroner and Jury are present, the press and public should be cleared from the Court. And again we know because we read about it.
The suggestion being offered here is that a witness, not known to be present should give his evidence to only the Coroner & the Jury, and that we do not read about it anywhere.

That David, is the unacceptable scenario. If it did happen we should at the very least read that the press & public were removed from the Court.
The fact that we do not is to me highly indicative that no such scenario took place.

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Enough to sport them for thirty odd years... though more discreet than your fine example."

Had mine since I was 16. Over 40 years.

Cheers.
LC

Ah, indicative of me being "a late starter". I've been called that before, ...the last to start, but first to finish.
Which in athletics can be good, but in other things.....