Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Jon Guy]

"... 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.

Hi Dr Strange

Swanson`s report states that Stride was standing in the gateway.

[Jon Guy]

"Sorry, didn't even realise that there was a "stage"."

Yes. It's the stage at which one asks, "Why on earth would IS tell a fib? To what purpose?" It's numbered, 1.

Ah, I see. Thanks. As I know, from Swanson`s report, that the Police didn`t doubt Schwartz`s statement, I forgoe that question.

[Jon Guy]

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

Hi Lynn

Because he was sadistic nut, perhaps?

Maybe, he`d already cut her throat when BS Man noticed Schwartz, and he did indeed walk away and try again later, about 50 mins later?

[Garry Wroe]

The question is could anything account for that?

Lots of things, CD. Dr Phillips postulated that Stride and Eddowes had been killed by different men. For his part, Walter Dew observed that ‘people's minds were so dominated by Jack the Ripper … that they sought to fasten upon him every murder no matter how, where or when it was committed.’

Sound familiar?

[lynn cates]

trending now

Hello Harry.

"So, in my opinion, what he sighted was as reported, either at the yard entrance,or just outside on the pavement."

No reason to believe otherwise.

"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."

Nor yet I.

"There had been no serious crime to cover up, and by appearance, no attempt at rape."

Harry, you simply MUST stop making sense. You are in danger of creating a trend. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

doxastics 101

Hello Jon. Thanks.

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

Absolutely. Gone are the days (well, in my life at least) when I allow something to slip by unexamined.

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

All I want to see is truth. But to say it is possible someone was there who was not BS, is little more than a truism. And to say the coppers thought Liz soliciting is in that category as well.

"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."

Sorry if it gives the wrong appearance. Please help me to appear in the correct manner.

The nub of controversy concerns Swanson's report. So far, so good? He makes 2 important (well, for our present purposes) claims.

1. Liz is a prostitute.

2. It is not a "done deal" that BSM killed Liz.

Now, insofar as I say Liz may have been a prostitute and may even have been soliciting that night, but it is not clear, that's disrespectful? Yes, Swanson believed that and those from whom he likely derived this belief concurred. So?

And I agree that BSM may not have killed Liz. I BELIEVE, however, that IF he existed, then he did. But Swanson makes him more probable than Parcel man. So?

"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."

I disagree. I wish to know a good bit more that either could ever know.

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

You'll forgive me if I say, "Rubbish"?

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

Actually, I try to supply the complete picture--and I try to dumb things down enough for them to comprehend the material. But I NEVER would get to the point where I'd ask them to believe it because I said it.

But perhaps we've pursued this red herring far enough?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dissimilarity

Hello Edward. Regarding the differences to Stride, Dr. Phillips noted that, "There is a great dissimilarity."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wording

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"As I know, from Swanson's report, that the Police didn't doubt Schwartz`s statement"

Ah! But Swanson doesn't say that. He says the report casts no doubt.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

I Sade no such thing.

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Because he was sadistic nut, perhaps?"

Then why not mutilate as well? And if he were "JTR" and a sadist, why not torture these women BEFORE he killed them?

"Maybe, he'd already cut her throat when BS Man noticed Schwartz . . ."

Oh, please.

". . . and he did indeed walk away and try again later, about 50 mins later?"

The yard was full of people by then. (Yes, I get your Eddowes reference. Oh, dear.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

suitable for framing

Hello Garry.

"Dr Phillips postulated that Stride and Eddowes had been killed by different men. For his part, Walter Dew observed that ‘people's minds were so dominated by Jack the Ripper … that they sought to fasten upon him every murder no matter how, where or when it was committed."

This is suitable for framing.

"Sound familiar?"

Quite. Rather like the proverbial broken record.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

"As I know, from Swanson's report, that the Police didn't doubt Schwartz`s statement"

Ah! But Swanson doesn't say that. He says the report casts no doubt.

Cheers Lynn.
Yes, that was the reason I give for not recognising your Stage 1, questioning the existance of BS Man.

[Jon Guy]

"Because he was sadistic nut, perhaps?"

Then why not mutilate as well?

Keep up, Lynn. Schwartz ?

And if he were "JTR" and a sadist, why not torture these women BEFORE he killed them?

Do you not consider strangulation a sadistic act ?
Fair enough.

"Maybe, he'd already cut her throat when BS Man noticed Schwartz . . ."

Oh, please.

Why not?

". . . and he did indeed walk away and try again later, about 50 mins later?"

The yard was full of people by then. (Yes, I get your Eddowes reference. Oh, dear.)

Oh, you meant try again a bit later with the same victim and in the same spot.

Glad you got the Eddowes ref.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Now, insofar as I say Liz may have been a prostitute and may even have been soliciting that night, but it is not clear, that's disrespectful? Yes, Swanson believed that and those from whom he likely derived this belief concurred. So?

Swanson didn't just 'believe' this, his detectives investigated her acquaintances, and people who knew her, the conclusion was, she was a prostitute. These opinions and verifications by a host of unnamed witnesses are not available to us.
This is what I mean by questioning their ability to make this determination.

Scotland Yard did not determine this based on what 'we' know, they determined it based on what 'they' knew.

And I agree that BSM may not have killed Liz. I BELIEVE, however, that IF he existed, then he did. But Swanson makes him more probable than Parcel man. So?

Swanson is also assuming he existed, but he acknowledges the possibility he was not the killer. If it was not possible, he wouldn't imply it was, yes?
What Swanson is missing of course, is no mention of this other intruder. But, that in itself is not unusual, he has the same problem in the other cases. The actual killer was not seen then either.

"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."

I disagree. I wish to know a good bit more that either could ever know.

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

You'll forgive me if I say, "Rubbish"?

Of course you are forgiven

What I am getting at is this, the only evidence we can use in our pursuit of a criminal investigation is largely from the inquest. However, the inquest was not a criminal investigation. So, the bulk of witness testimony, not just in the Stride case but in every case, was selected by the Coroner in order for him to fulfill his role in the process. He needed to establish, Who died, and the When, the Where, and the How.
And yet, the police knew considerably more about these crimes than was publicized through the inquest.

Just by way of example, how do we reasonably question the conclusions arrived at by Scotland Yard when they had hundreds(?) of statements available to them across a broad range of issues, and we have 10(?) selected for a narrow purpose by the Coroner?

This is why I am more interested in filling in the blanks between what we know Scotland Yard knew, rather than questioning Scotland Yard on our insufficient understanding of the facts of the case.

[lynn cates]

strangled

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Do you not consider strangulation a sadistic act?
Fair enough."

Strangled? Oh, back to Polly and Annie. Very well.

"Why not?"

The doctors claimed, at best, she'd be able to draw her legs up.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the possible

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Swanson didn't just 'believe' this, his detectives investigated her acquaintances, and people who knew her, the conclusion was, she was a prostitute."

The boarding house chap who said one must do what one must? Yes, powerful indicator.

"These opinions and verifications by a host of unnamed witnesses are not available to us."

Host? Well, one or two perhaps?

And the vanishing evidence ploy? I must congratulate you on the vanishing evidence ploy. (Until we meet again and the case is solved'.)

"Swanson is also assuming he existed, but he acknowledges the possibility he was not the killer. If it was not possible, he wouldn't imply it was, yes?"

I, too, claim it was possible. Billions of things are possible which never happen.

"What Swanson is missing of course. . ."

Eh? He's missing something? Surely not?

". . . is no mention of this other intruder. But, that in itself is not unusual, he has the same problem in the other cases. The actual killer was not seen then either."

But in this case, I don't see even a hint--beyond the possible.

Cheers.
LC