Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

. . . his pony shied to the left . . . was it because the murderer was there?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • . . . his pony shied to the left . . . was it because the murderer was there?

    Louis Diemshutz (1:00 AM) turned his pony and cart into the yard and his pony shied to the left and refused to go any further.

    The most common term used to describe Diemshutz's pony's reaction is the word 'shied.' Often it is accompanied by a description of the pony pulling to the left, as if it jumped a bit.

    So is anyone here a horse lover, if so: what does "shied" mean to you? Did the pony just stop, or is there an implication in the word that suggests the pony jerked back in fear?

    I ask this because I wonder, does a horse who encounters something on the ground in front of him, shy? I.e. does it react with fear, or does it just stop walking and wait?

    Horses tend to know their job and their routines, and on the streets of Whitechapel encountering garbage blocking the path was probably not a unique experience for this pony.

    I have this feeling if a pony encounters something (someone) lying on the ground in front of him motionless, all the pony will do is stop walking, and wait for the driver to remove the obstacle from the path. No reason for the pony to act fearful.

    Thus this hypothesis: The murderer is squatted down next to Long Liz as Diemshutz enters the yard and his pony 'shies' because the murderer suddenly jumps up from the body and flees; it is the murderer's sudden unexpected movement that causes the pony to shy to the left, not Long Liz's motionless body.

    Of course all this is blow up if the pony actually stepped on Liz, but Diemshutz doesn't suggest that to us.

  • #2
    I'm told that horses react to blood, but I don't know for certain that it's true.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • #3
      We donít always use language accurately so we canít know if the person that used the word shied did so either, whether it was Diemschutz or the Press. Iíve always read it in terms of the horse simply halting and refusing to move on. I think Iím right in saying that a horse wonít step on a person thatís lying down on the ground therefore the horse could sense/smell that someone was there and as Diemschutz saw no movement it would have been Stride.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Often a horse's natural reaction to something that it doesn't understand is to spook or shy. A spook is usually a startled jump sideways, or a quick change of direction with the intention to flee. The horse may or may not want to keep their eyes on the object that frightens them.

        There is nothing wrong with the usage here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Horses just have better night vision than humans, and the horse simply saw Stride`s body.

          Comment


          • #6
            It seems clear the term was used to express that his horse refused to proceed. The dying woman is the reason, not some crouching killer. Why would a killer be crouching over her? He grabbed her scarf, he slit her throat and he dropped her. Done deal. There is no indication whatsoever that her killer was intent on doing anything else but that single cut. So...Why crouch? He could have just slipped into the club, dropped the knife in the sink of dishes, and joined the rest upstairs.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
              Horses just have better night vision than humans, and the horse simply saw Stride`s body.
              Quite right, Jon. From an article on Equine Vision in Wikipedia:

              "Horses have more rods than humans, a high proportion of rods to cones (about 20:1), as well as a tapetum lucidum, giving them superior night vision"

              A tapetum lucidum is a reflective layer behind the retina in some animals, which increases the amount of light available to the photoreceptor cells. Humans lack this extra layer, so any light that isn't captured by the rods/cones the first time round is simply absorbed by the blood vessels at the back of the eye and "lost".
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                Quite right, Jon. From an article on Equine Vision in Wikipedia:

                "Horses have more rods than humans, a high proportion of rods to cones (about 20:1), as well as a tapetum lucidum, giving them superior night vision"

                A tapetum lucidum is a reflective layer behind the retina in some animals, which increases the amount of light available to the photoreceptor cells. Humans lack this extra layer, so any light that isn't captured by the rods/cones the first time round is simply absorbed by the blood vessels at the back of the eye and "lost".

                That`s it, Gareth, or the horse was startled seeing the cachous in Stride`s hand,and how on earth she held onto them whilst been thrown to the ground.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Evening Standard 1 Oct carries an interview with Louis;

                  "My pony is frisky and apt to shy, though not much, and it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall. I could not make out what was the matter, so I bent my head to see if there were anything to frighten him. Then I noticed there was something unusual about the ground, but I could not tell what it was, except that it was not level. I mean there was something there like a little heap; but I thought it was only mud, or something of the kind, and I did not take much notice of it; still I touched it with my whip, and then I was able to tell it was not mud."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    It seems clear the term was used to express that his horse refused to proceed. The dying woman is the reason, not some crouching killer. Why would a killer be crouching over her? He grabbed her scarf, he slit her throat and he dropped her. Done deal. There is no indication whatsoever that her killer was intent on doing anything else but that single cut. So...Why crouch? He could have just slipped into the club, dropped the knife in the sink of dishes, and joined the rest upstairs.
                    I agree with you because I don't believe Stride to be a Ripper victim. But this closer look at the pony's reaction is predicated on the believe that Stride was a Ripper victim, thus the crouching. Not a Ripper victim, yes, no reason for anyone to be standing/crouching next to the body.
                    Last edited by APerno; 07-11-2019, 03:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      We donít always use language accurately so we canít know if the person that used the word shied did so either, whether it was Diemschutz or the Press. Iíve always read it in terms of the horse simply halting and refusing to move on. I think Iím right in saying that a horse wonít step on a person thatís lying down on the ground therefore the horse could sense/smell that someone was there and as Diemschutz saw no movement it would have been Stride.
                      I agree and if that is all 'shied' meant than it makes perfect sense to me, what I expect the pony to do is simply stop moving forward because something was blocking the path, not that the pony was frighted. The problem I am having is that most accounts make it sound as though the pony jumped off to the side, like being spooked.
                      Last edited by APerno; 07-11-2019, 03:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        The Evening Standard 1 Oct carries an interview with Louis;

                        "My pony is frisky and apt to shy, though not much, and it struck me when I was passing through the double gates into the yard that he wanted to keep too much to the left side against the wall. I could not make out what was the matter, so I bent my head to see if there were anything to frighten him. Then I noticed there was something unusual about the ground, but I could not tell what it was, except that it was not level. I mean there was something there like a little heap; but I thought it was only mud, or something of the kind, and I did not take much notice of it; still I touched it with my whip, and then I was able to tell it was not mud."
                        This account does not suggested a frightened pony, and that makes sense to me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post


                          That`s it, Gareth, or the horse was startled seeing the cachous in Stride`s hand,and how on earth she held onto them whilst been thrown to the ground.
                          ah! Got it! You see it's always the simplest answer. The pony was going for the candy and threw Stride to the ground, but even in her death throes she still wouldn't give up the cachous. The answer always lies in the cachous, it is what Abberline never understood, but this forum's members have nailed it; when in doubt think/blame the cachous.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by APerno View Post

                            ah! Got it! You see it's always the simplest answer. The pony was going for the candy and threw Stride to the ground, but even in her death throes she still wouldn't give up the cachous. The answer always lies in the cachous, it is what Abberline never understood, but this forum's members have nailed it; when in doubt think/blame the cachous.
                            That`s it. I was blind to the significance of the cachous for years. But now I can see.

                            The cachous are the mints that will not be blamed for nothing
                            Last edited by Jon Guy; 07-11-2019, 03:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                              That`s it. I was blind to the significance of the cachous for years. But now I can see.

                              The cachous are the mints that will not be blamed for nothing
                              ... cachuwes, surely?
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X