Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Cogidubnus]

cuttus interruptus

Hello Lynn

"perhaps owing to his being disturbed, either by Schwartz/Pipeman or by an approaching Diemschutz."

If he were disturbed, why cut at all? Why not walk away and try again later?

Possibly the killer was engrossed in his work, sensed the disturbance at exactly the critical moment, and literally couldn't stop himself making the first incision...or perhaps having revealed the knife didn't want to leave Liz as an albeit fleeting witness of it...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi CF

A related idea: Pipeman was Stride's 'date' at the time (whether a John or not is irrelevant, unless he knew her previously) and tucked into the doorway to relieve himself with LS waiting a distreet distance away. He finishes his 'business' and lights the pipe.

Could pipeman have merely emerged from Fairclough Street, and could Schwartz simply have thought he'd come from the Public House?

As an alternative, was the chandlers visited by Brown, on the South West corner of Fairclough/Berners and could pipeman have emerged from there - ie did the Star simply assume the pub and get it wrong?

Just musing aloud...

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

Partial severing of the left carotid artery, as opposed to complete severing. Does that indicate different behaviour or simply a slight difference in the resulting wound?

Slight difference, Colin? Not a bit of it. We're talking night and day here.

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Dave. Thanks.

We're talking microseconds here. Else, it should have been deep like Polly and Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

We're talking microseconds here. Else, it should have been deep like Polly and Annie.

Absolutely Lynn...but he may also have been absorbed in his work...how else would you explain the otherwise insane risks he took? (on second thoughts, in your case, how else would you explain the otherwise insane risks they took? )

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

"But the have-your-cake-and-eat-it interpretation that asserts that someone else snuck onto the scene and attacked her after BS left (and the evidence for him leaving is..?), which also relies on Stride inexplicably hanging around in the location of her first attach, just doesn't work."

"I notice also that Swanson's comments keep getting misconstrued. He simply observed that it wasn't conclusively proved that BS was the murderer, which is fair enough. He certainly wasn't suggesting that a proposed "second attacker" was in any way probable or realistic."

Hello Ben,

I have to disagree with you here, brother. If it is so obvious that the B.S. man had to be her killer, why even mention a second attacker? I think he is merely saying that while a second attacker might not be probable, there is enough of a reasonable possibility that it can't be dismissed outright.

As for Liz hanging around after being "attacked", I can easily see that happening if it was simply a "that will teach you to mouth off to me, bitch" shove and nothing more. Simply the cost of doing business on the street and one I am sure she encountered before.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Slight difference, Colin? Not a bit of it. We're talking night and day here.

The question is could anything account for that?

c.d.

[c.d.]

12:45 AM (approximately): Quoting Home Office File:

I took that from the message boards under victims. Where does the "approximately" come from? Is that from the boards or from the Home Office File itself?

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi CD

As I never tire of saying, in the LVP, unless the witness is standing in eyesight of the Tower of Westminster, or within certain earshot of Big Ben, then ALL times are approximate...seriously...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

insane risks

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Well, what is the main reason to take insane risks? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

It is not known who initially accosted who.All we have is words were spoken,and Stride was seen to fall or been thrown to the ground.It is doubtful if Schwartz,who was behind BS at that particular time,even if not far behind,would have sighted the inside of the yard to any extent,and certainly not the wall that Stride was found beside.So,in my opinion,What he sighted was as reported,either at the yard entrance,or just outside on the pavement.At that time no Knife was reported to have been seen.I fail to see what motivation would have driven BS to have taken Stride into the yard,by whatever means,to kill her.There had been no serious crime to cover up,and by appearance,no attempt at rape.The only motiveless crimes of murder,in that period seem to have been committed by JTR.

[drstrange169]

"... She was found with her feet just past the gates (4.5 feet or two steps away from where she was standing)..."

I've often seen this stated as fact, but I've always assumed she was standing about 10 feet away from where her body was found.

My assumed scenario places Elizabeth Stride next to number 42's doorway. My reasoning being the police report specifically states,

"(Schwartz) ... got AS FAR as the gateway .."

This to my mind places Schwartz at the gate-side next to number 40, witnessing the incident happening, 9 feet away on the other side of the gateway.
Schwartz sees BSM try to pull Stride into the road, but instead turns her around and throws her on the ground, literally in front of 42's doorway.

Surely the police report would have said, as he approached the gateway if the incident happened nearest number 40.

[Wickerman]

If Swanson or the Home Office annotator didn't think it was a realistic possibility I hardly think they would have bothered mentioning it.

Agreed.
In a report to his superiors it is not Swanson's place to speculate any 'probabilities', it is sufficient that he acknowledges that the possibility exists.
If, after accessing all the incoming reports and statements, Swanson knew why another person could not have been the killer he would certainly not have wrote of the 'possibility'.

Jon
Calmness prevails.

And so it should.

That is a difficult manner to fall if thrown from the street - while retaining hold of those cachous.
And after being thrown, the BS man would have had to follow her into the yard and cut her throat. While she said nothing.

After a throw like that its a wonder he didn't break her neck.

I have to say Ben's theory that she was coaxed into the yard with the threat of the knife is more likely.
But that means she regained her feet after being thrown down, still clutching those cachous and was so fearful she refrained from screaming even though the what was to become known as the Ripper scare was already in full spate.

Every proposed solution has its problems, but any prostitute, familiar with the seamy side of life, should quickly recognise that to follow a stranger brandishing a knife into the darkness is not likely to be good for her health. To turn and run into the street would be the natural instinct.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I thought we should be trying to fill in the blanks, not question their conclusions at every opportunity."

Why can't we do both? Questions are my life.

On the one hand we deplore the fact so much information is missing, yet when we do have information, we question it.

Could it be that the information we possess is not what we want to see?

"but we have a habit of questioning every aspect of the investigation, which is not the same."

Indeed. But it is a good habit, in my opinion.

Depending what is being questioned, it can come across as showing little appreciation for the amount of work done by the police and little respect for their intelligence.

When we question the opinion of Swanson, or Abberline, we can only base our questions on a paltry sample of knowledge, yet both these men knew considerably more than we could ever wish to know.

Putting it briefly, we are in no position to question these men.

Rather like your least knowledgeable students questioning you, and how often do you have to explain that they don't have the complete picture?

[Lechmere]

Absolutely Wickerman
there are too many attempts to bang square pegs into round holes - tampering with police evidence - assuming they got basic things wrong.
this does not mean the police made no mistakes - some are observable.
if for example the wound to stride was as different to the others as night and day then I would expect that they would have Said so at the time and been more sceptical about including her. They obviously considered whether her death was linked as they checked her local contacts.