Diemschutz arrival

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Harry. I agree on all points. Well said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry, yes I'm rather certain that her neck lie over the stones when cut, as a pool of blood had settled on the larger rock and ran into the gutter from there. There was no blood anywhere else.

That explains a great deal, Tom.

As for 'supine position', the other women were turned to their side and cut and bled that way, just as Stride was. That's why we have a puddle of blood to the LEFT of Eddowes, and that's why fences to the LEFT of Chapman was blood spattered, yet nothing to her right, and that's why the wall to the RIGHT of Kelly was painted in blood.

Therein lies the problem, Tom. With respect, you have misunderstood the physiological processes involved in these murders and thus the Ripper’s modus operandi.

The blood spray patterns left on the boundary fence at Hanbury Street and the partition wall at Miller’s Court were caused by blood jetting from the carotid artery, a structure that runs down the side of the neck more or less in line with the earlobe. When cut it emits a jet of blood following the path of least resistance – to the side of the victim, not the front. Hence in order for the Hanbury Street fence and the Miller’s Court partition wall to have been sprayed with arterial blood, Chapman and Kelly must have been lying in a supine position as their throats were cut. Had they been turned on their side the blood would have jetted downwards, towards the ground with Chapman and on to the mattress in the case of Kelly.

Confirmation of the Ripper’s methodology is to be found in the ‘mud’ evidence. On examining the clothing of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes doctors found that only the back of the victims had become mud stained. No debris was discovered on the flanks or the side of the head. In other words the victims were unquestionably throttled, lowered on to their backs, and remained there whilst the sharp force injuries were inflicted.

On this basis, Tom, if you remain certain that Stride was lying on her side when her throat was cut, you really ought to be questioning her validity as a Ripper victim.

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Harry.

"I think finding the edges of the scarf in darkness,might be a bit tricky."

Do you mean the tails or the edge where it was frayed? If the latter, I'd say that the scarf found the knife.

But if the former, you grab and whatever comes to hand. . .

The observation you make would be like wondering why the golfer hit the ball onto that EXACT blade of grass. He hit it and it landed wherever it landed.

Cheers.
LC

[miakaal4]

Can someone tell me why, if this was not a JtR kill, he did not stab Liz in the chest/heart or throat? Why the grief of a throat cut? If she was struggling or making a noise would killer not just put his hand over her mouth and stab?

[lynn cates]

compare and contrast

Hello Miakaal. A stab may or may not puncture the intended organ. The knife may or may not strike a bone, thus inflicting damage to the perpetrator's hand.

But a severed carotid (by the way, the assailant did a rum job of severing it--unlike Polly and Annie's assailant) is MUCH quicker and MUCH more efficient.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Screamed?

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"He might have and not even known it."

But if so, how could she scream?

Cheers.
LC

She "screamed three times but not very loudly". This is, however, Schwartz's account as given through an interpreter. Was 'scream' the meaning which Schwartz was actually trying to convey? Surely, if it was done 'not very loudly' it wasn't a scream, as we understand the word? She cried out? She called to him? She tried to speak? A not very loud scream is something of an oxymoron IMHO.

Regards, Bridewell.

[miakaal4]

Hi Lynn,
So do feel that whoever killed her had intended to, rather than a spontaneous murder, which might have been a more random attack?

[Bridewell]

That could explain the not very loudly bit.

Just checked 'The Ultimate'. According to Schwartz, BS Man 'had nothing in his hands', which perhaps makes the 'throat already cut' scenario an unlikely one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

gibberish

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"Surely, if it was done 'not very loudly' it wasn't a scream, as we understand the word? She cried out? She called to him? She tried to speak? A not very loud scream is something of an oxymoron"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

menu

Hello Miakaal. Thanks.

"So do feel that whoever killed her had intended to, rather than a spontaneous murder, which might have been a more random attack?"

Great question. I see two distinct scenarios.

1. Liz was to meet someone around 12.30. She met him about 12.40-12.45 at the side door. He killed her as they walked out of the yard. (See my re-enactment.)

If this is correct, obviously it was pre-meditated.

2. Someone killed her in a fit of anger. Likely assassin was BS man. Likely a club member or attendee (Rob Clack's thesis).

If this is correct, then Schwartz is telling the truth.

My only problem with #2 is that AFTER BS man attacks, THEN Liz must:

i) go into the yard with her attacker

ii) calm down

iii) go for the cachous

iv) BS must now have ANOTHER temper flare up and kill her

One last possibility is a hybrid of #1 & #2. Liz meets her attacker at the side door, they head out, his temper flares. In the hybrid, Schwartz is fibbing and we need a powerful motive for such a sudden onslaught of temper.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Well, according to Schwartz, she screamed after she`d been thrown down.
Perhaps, the scarf was been pulled tight and her windpipe been severed.

Both these actions (tightened scarf and throat cut), as shown by the medical evidence, happened when she was down or falling.

Of course, screaming at full throttle whilst wrestling with someone may not be as easy as we imagine.

[lynn cates]

difficulty

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Both these actions (tightened scarf and throat cut), as shown by the medical evidence, happened when she was down or falling.'

Agreed.

"Of course, screaming at full throttle whilst wrestling with someone may not be as easy as we imagine."

Indeed. Perhaps even more difficult with a severed throat.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

On this basis, Tom, if you remain certain that Stride was lying on her side when her throat was cut, you really ought to be questioning her validity as a Ripper victim.

Hi Garry. I would have to disagree with some of your points about bloodletting, but I don't have the time at the moment. However, I think that arguing that a killer would operate in identical mode, even when under very different circumstances, is a bit of a labored argument and in no way supported by any evidence throughout the history of murder. If it's simply a matter of tearing apart the Stride case evidence and looking for those little things that are different, you'll have no trouble in finding them. Just as you'd have no trouble in finding them in the cases of the other women. If Stride was killed by a different man than Eddowes, then those two men were working together. There's not much room around that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Garry. I would have to disagree with some of your points about bloodletting, but I don't have the time at the moment. However, I think that arguing that a killer would operate in identical mode, even when under very different circumstances, is a bit of a labored argument and in no way supported by any evidence throughout the history of murder. If it's simply a matter of tearing apart the Stride case evidence and looking for those little things that are different, you'll have no trouble in finding them. Just as you'd have no trouble in finding them in the cases of the other women. If Stride was killed by a different man than Eddowes, then those two men were working together. There's not much room around that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, I believe that one of the main reasons to look into all the "little" differences here is that the apparent motive for killing Liz Stride in the first place was satisfied by just her murder. There are no additional indicators that suggest more, or less, was planned by her killer. In that respect some kind of altercation like the one suggested by the Schwartz story makes some sense, a brief act of uncontrolled anger or aggression.

That is not what the evidence in the first 2 Canonicals leads us to believe, those murders were apparently stepping stones on a path that lead to mutilating the abdomens and pelvic regions.

Its one thing to suggest that small differences dont negate larger similarities, but in the case of Stride the similarity list is exceedingly short. At night, a middle aged Unfortunate without a paid bed for the night, who gets her throat cut. But when we look at possible reasons for killing Liz within the known evidence we do not see any indication at all to support a belief that her killer ultimately sought mutilations of the abdominal and pelvic regions.

Which I believe the evidence in the first 2 cases clearly does.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

No Intention To Mutilate

But when we look at possible reasons for killing Liz within the known evidence we do not see any indication at all to support a belief that her killer ultimately sought mutilations of the abdominal and pelvic regions.

Unless you subscribe to the contemporary view that the killer was interrupted and carried out the intended mutilations on a second victim. If the killer was BS man then interrupted he certainly was on at least one occasion. If there was indeed no intention to mutilate Stride, however, the two possibilities seem to me to be:

(1) Different killer.
or
(2) Same killer, but different motive.

(1) is more likely, but (2) cannot be discounted.

Wonder why the killer felt so safe at such a risky location.

Regards, Bridewell.