Stride Bruising

[lynn cates]

the proof of the pudding

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Then how to determine a black ovoid is a grape, if not by the shape?"

Umm, take a bite? But mind you spit out the pips and skin. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

The grapes available in England then were much smaller. Not much bigger than peas.

If it matters

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Errata. Thanks.

It just may.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

The grapes available in England then were much smaller. Not much bigger than peas.

If it matters

Do you mind providing a source for this?

[DVV]

English Grapes for Dummies, Jon.

[Wickerman]

From what I can see this thread appears devoted to the bruising on her chest, but Tom recently raised an issue to me, that it was said there were also bruises on her head, the left side of her face.

"The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after and not before the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are severe bruises on her left temple and left cheek, thus showing that force must have been used to prostrate her,..."
IPN, 6 Oct.

And..

"There is a severe bruise on the cheek of the unfortunate woman, which may be explained by the theory that the throat was cut while she was standing, and the body allowed to fall heavily upon its side, bringing the cheek into contact with a stone that abuts from the wall just at this point."
Star, 1 Oct.

And yet, Dr Phillips stated:
"On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap."

And the Coroner, in his summary commented:
"There were no marks of gagging, no bruises on the face,.."

So were there bruises on her face or not?
Is it likely the doctors could have missed them or were the marks not bruises at all, just mud?

Dr Phillips:
"Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side."

[DRoy]

Jon,

I'd think it was mud. If we start trusting newspaper reports over testimony of the doctors then we're in trouble.

The odd part is the Police News who commented almost a week after the murder. Old news from first witness statements? That's odd. Unless of course Liz had discoloration as part of the decomposing process that appeared to be bruising?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

From what I can see this thread appears devoted to the bruising on her chest, but Tom recently raised an issue to me, that it was said there were also bruises on her head, the left side of her face.

"The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after and not before the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are severe bruises on her left temple and left cheek, thus showing that force must have been used to prostrate her,..."
IPN, 6 Oct.

And..

"There is a severe bruise on the cheek of the unfortunate woman, which may be explained by the theory that the throat was cut while she was standing, and the body allowed to fall heavily upon its side, bringing the cheek into contact with a stone that abuts from the wall just at this point."
Star, 1 Oct.

And yet, Dr Phillips stated:
"On removing the scalp there was no sign of bruising or extravasation of blood between it and the skull-cap."

And the Coroner, in his summary commented:
"There were no marks of gagging, no bruises on the face,.."

So were there bruises on her face or not?
Is it likely the doctors could have missed them or were the marks not bruises at all, just mud?

Dr Phillips:
"Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side."

Hi Jon,

Since Blackwell stated that it was his belief that she may have been cut "while falling", it does suggest that she was dropped...likely when the scarf is let go of. She lands on her left side and the left side of her face....there really is no issue here. She fell on her left side, and her left side shows us that by the mud and bruising.

BTW...Tom has also suggested the killer robbed Liz, so....

Cheers Jon

[Garry Wroe]

If we start trusting newspaper reports over testimony of the doctors then we're in trouble.

Agreed.

The odd part is the Police News who commented almost a week after the murder. Old news from first witness statements? That's odd. Unless of course Liz had discoloration as part of the decomposing process that appeared to be bruising?

The IPN was a weekly publication, DRoy, meaning that its news was often a week out of date and thus inaccurate.

[DRoy]

Garry,

Yes but where would they have got their 'wrong' info from in the first place? I guess if the article was written immediately and no follow up or edits through the week it would make sense. Wouldn't give them much credibility though if they didn't make changes as new info came to light.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Agreed.


The IPN was a weekly publication, DRoy, meaning that its news was often a week out of date and thus inaccurate.

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

[DRoy]

Jon,

I don't think Garry meant they were completely out of the loop. They have provided us with some excellent drawings which means they weren't completely incapable of research a/o stories. If i'm interpreting Garry correctly then we can insinuate some of their work as legit but not all then it's not all wrong or bad. All depending on when they wrote and when they published could make a difference. I'm sure that could be said for most publications.

Forgive me if i'm wrong in that interpretation.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Garry,

Yes but where would they have got their 'wrong' info from in the first place? I guess if the article was written immediately and no follow up or edits through the week it would make sense. Wouldn't give them much credibility though if they didn't make changes as new info came to light.

Cheers
DRoy

I should say in all fairness, the Coroner's summary was only after the IPN published about the bruises on her face. However, both comments I posted from Dr Phillips were in print on the 4th, the IPN published their outdated opinion 2 days later.
They seem to have followed the Star, and although Phillips had corrected the erroneous observations we see in the press, the IPN made no attempt to do so.

[Garry Wroe]

I don't think Garry meant they were completely out of the loop. They have provided us with some excellent drawings which means they weren't completely incapable of research a/o stories. If i'm interpreting Garry correctly then we can insinuate some of their work as legit but not all then it's not all wrong or bad. All depending on when they wrote and when they published could make a difference. I'm sure that could be said for most publications.

Forgive me if i'm wrong in that interpretation.

Your interpretation is correct, DRoy. Because the IPN was a weekly publication much of its 'current' information wasn't current by dint of the fact that it had been gathered in the immediate aftermath of a crime when misinformation was rife. In other respects, however, it is an excellent researching source since it covered case-related areas that were often ignored by the dailies, a factor which prompted me to use it extensively when writing my book.

[Garry Wroe]

I seem to recall someone putting faith in the IPN (Nov. 24th) when they posted about the sketch of Hutchinson watching Astrachan.

Correct, Jon. And there are very good grounds for so doing. But then I'm able to recognize the subtle distinction between sketches which were ordinarily reliable and outdated information that wasn't.