Stride Bruising

[curious4]

Hello Jon,

Doesn"t "lodged between" imply that the cachous were stuck between finger and thumb?

Dr Phillips's remarks can, of course, be interpreted both ways (I will find that reference!) but why would he keep going back to look?

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

[curious4]

False prophets

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks. (And thanks for no "invisible" choke signs as others have discussed with Liz and Kate.)

'But surely "scarf knotted tightly" and "scarf pulled tight" would imply choking?"

Or pulling. (Have you seen my re-enactment?)

"The bow pulled to the left" - all point to him/her twisting the scarf tight enough for her to lose consciousness, at least."

Or having his arm over her left shoulder and suddenly pulling a slip knot taut.

"Would there be marks left if he/she only choked her for a short time? And how much would these marks be obliterated by the cut - it was very close to the scarf?"

Hard to say. But neither Liz nor Kate had such--Polly and Annie did. (Yet I am called "idiot" for remarking the difference.)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

"and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."

Perhaps Jack discovered that it was much quicker to choke his victims into unconsciousness, as opposed to strangling them for longer, and this is why there are no clear signs of strrangulation?

No, haven't seen your re-enactment - can you post a link? I would like to see it - all is grist to my mill lol. (Not referring to you as a false prophet, by the way!)

All good wishes,
Gwyneth

[curious4]

Helllo all.

I believe Liz's odds and ends were found in her jacket pocket.

Best wishes,
C4

Ignore this, went too far back in the thread!

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Not a problem Lynn

It does not remove possibilties but should be seriously considered. To stay remotely on topic, Schwartz provides a quite sound explanation for the bruising. If HE is sound or not becomes pertinent. I'm not completely convinced or disuaded. Sorry, Bourbon Whiskey! Woooo Hoooo! I am quite fond of some of what you relay Lynn.

[lynn cates]

clear signs

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Yes, it's troubling. Two ladies with clear signs, the rest, not.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hard to say. But neither Liz nor Kate had such--Polly and Annie did. (Yet I am called "idiot" for remarking the difference.)

Cheers.
LC[/QUOTE]

Certainly does not make you an idiot. For the Stride scenario the grabbing of the scarf provides some sort of an explanation. For Kate I'm still lost on that one. Always bugged me.

[lynn cates]

bruising remark

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well and good. but, as the doctors averred, the shoulder bruises need not have been precipitated at that time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks. (And thanks for no "invisible" choke signs as others have discussed with Liz and Kate.)

'But surely "scarf knotted tightly" and "scarf pulled tight" would imply choking?"

Or pulling. (Have you seen my re-enactment?)

"The bow pulled to the left" - all point to him/her twisting the scarf tight enough for her to lose consciousness, at least."

Or having his arm over her left shoulder and suddenly pulling a slip knot taut.

"Would there be marks left if he/she only choked her for a short time? And how much would these marks be obliterated by the cut - it was very close to the scarf?"

Hard to say. But neither Liz nor Kate had such--Polly and Annie did. (Yet I am called "idiot" for remarking the difference.)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,
The doctors concluded that Liz had been choked - enough to make her unconscious presumably, otherwise there would be no point in it. The hand holding the cachous had to be prised open,

Hello Gwyneth.

Blackwell used a different phrase

"...I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view."

The bruises which Dr Phillips referred to: "which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since". I have in an earlier post suggested that he might have been using the word "since" in its old-fashioned sense, as meaning "previously" and in that case that he had seen the same thing twice before, presumably on Chapman and Nichols (or Tabram) and was watching to see whether they developed in the same way,...

I'm not so sure that is what he meant.
Dr Phillips was speaking at the inquest on Wednesday 3rd Oct.
Previously he had seen the same body three times, the first time on Sunday at the crime scene, the second time while conducting the autopsy on Monday where he noted the bruises, and the third time the next day, Tuesday when he returned to the mortuary and measured the neck.

So I don't think Phillips was referring to previous cases, just two earlier viewings of Stride's body.

Hoping we have found some common ground here.

We're getting there

Hello Jon.

"As the act of copulation with prostitutes seems to be with the client at the rear"

Disagree. Interfemoral is usually accomplished face to face, so forward.

Cheers.
LC

If I could remember where the source was for this I would gladly post it but with it being many years ago and, I have always thought it was taken for granted, I never considered a need to establish the point.

I'm not just talking inter-femoral, that is safe sex, I mean conventional intercourse from the rear, and as I mentioned elsewhere, anal sex was also an option.
From the rear is the important point to consider, whatever the details are, it is the finger pressure over the collarbone that I suspect caused the bruises high on the front of her chest.

I don't see another method of causing bruises on the front that does not involve pressure on her back. And no evidence of pressure (bruising) on her back, or mud on her back, was noted.
That suggests to me that the frontal bruises were applied while she was standing, but not leaning back against anything.

.

[curious4]

Hello Lynn,

Bugrit! Can't find anywhere the doctors actually said that she was choked now! But surely "scarf knotted tightly" and "scarf pulled tight" would imply choking? "The bow pulled to the left" - all point to him/her twisting the scarf tight enough for her to lose consciousness, at least.

Would there be marks left if he/she only choked her for a short time? And how much would these marks be obliterated by the cut - it was very close to the scarf?

These are some of the questions which occur to C4 when reading the accounts of this horrible crime hehe.

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[curious]

As the act of copulation with prostitutes seems to be with the client at the rear, the man needs somewhere to grip. While he stands behind her he is grasping her shoulders with both hands, this just might leave pressure marks from his fingers over the collarbone.
I'm suspicious these marks are evidence she was a prostitute as they are noted on Chapman and, was it Coles or McKenzie?

.

Hi,
Thanks, very interesting observation.

curious

[lynn cates]

Foward, the light brigade!

Hello Jon.

"As the act of copulation with prostitutes seems to be with the client at the rear"

Disagree. Interfemoral is usually accomplished face to face, so forward.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

It's a sign!

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"the Thugees were quite good at it by all accounts. And she was choked."

OK. But surely there were no signs of that?

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

In reply

Hello Jon,

The doctors concluded that Liz had been choked - enough to make her unconscious presumably, otherwise there would be no point in it. The hand holding the cachous had to be prised open, which could be interpreted as clenched, but I agree that there did not appear to be any other signs of choking mentioned, as in the case of Martha Tabram, whose face was reported to be so swollen as to be almost unrecognisable, I believe, and the tongue protruding, as in Chapman.

The bruises which Dr Phillips referred to: "which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since". I have in an earlier post suggested that he might have been using the word "since" in its old-fashioned sense, as meaning "previously" and in that case that he had seen the same thing twice before, presumably on Chapman and Nichols (or Tabram) and was watching to see whether they developed in the same way, but he could just as well have meant that he had gone back to Stride twice and examined her bruises. I have seen the word "since" used as "previously" in a contemporary report somewhere in my reading, but would be hard put to find it again. If I do, I will post it!

As regards preferred positions, I have to admit that the male of the species is more knowledgeable than the female (this female, anyway), presumably something you discuss between yourselves on occasion (not that I accept it as one hundred per cent fully proved every time, but, as you have said, hard put to prove it either way). One question does spring to mind, though. If A has her hands against the wall, and B has his hands on her shoulders, who is holding up all the skirts? (Joking!)

Hoping we have found some common ground here.

All good wishes,
Gwyneth

[Wickerman]

... I do think she was choked first, as Jack was prone to do, and that he was interrupted, just as was thought at the time. If she was choked, she would have collapsed, no need to pull her over. Doesn't explain the bruises though, unless he grabbed her by the shoulders as she was falling, to place her in the right position.

Hello Gwyneth.

I'm quite open to the possibility she was choked, I just don't want to believe it through convenience, I need justification.
No mention was made of clenched hands, her tongue was not protruding, no mention of petechia on the face or neck.

The location of the bruises around the collarbone are not precise, they could result from her simply being a prostitute. Occupational wear & tear

As the act of copulation with prostitutes seems to be with the client at the rear, the man needs somewhere to grip. While he stands behind her he is grasping her shoulders with both hands, this just might leave pressure marks from his fingers over the collarbone.
I'm suspicious these marks are evidence she was a prostitute as they are noted on Chapman and, was it Coles or McKenzie?

.