Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[lynn cates]

12.45

Hello Dave. Thanks.

Yes, his window would be from 12.46 to 12.56. Certainly does not preclude BS man. Indeed, I think that is why Israel's story explicitly places the fracas at 12.45.

On the other hand, 1.00 is right out.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

equivocation

Hello (again) Dave. Thanks.

"The Inquest Statement from Blackwell states a minute and a half."

Indeed. That refers to her bleeding out. I was referring to her being taken down and cut.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi cd

Since she was found laying on her side it would seem likely that she was laid down gently in that position

Well almost the only way you're going to do that is by using a good deal of force, which might explain some of the bruising on her shoulders...it's still got to be a fairly violent process though, and if undertaken as slowly as that would suggest, then it does give her a window of opportunity to try to resist and she'd almost certainly need to ditch the cachous to do so...

I suppose another way would be asphyxiation, but if it was that, then neither Doctor spotted it

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Yes, his window would be from 12.46 to 12.56. Certainly does not preclude BS man. Indeed, I think that is why Israel's story explicitly places the fracas at 12.45.

Very well, (Making the usual provisos over LVP timings!). So how would Schwartz or his sponsors be able to, so accurately, guess what the good doctor would testify? Do you suspect he blurted it out in front of them? Or the police went in and questioned them that crudely and obviously?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike

Sorry mate but no he doesn't...In Swanson's words "but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"...hence my querying how you might define footway.

So not necessarily on the street, or in front of the gates...and if you place any credence on the Star account "The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"

Just one altercation required...

All the best

Dave

Dave,

Again, it would seem there is some misunderstanding here about some of the physical realities at that scene. It is not possible for Israel Schwartz to have seen a Broadshouldered Man try to pull a woman into the street from the "footway", and have her fall from that position to one inside the passageway, fully clear of the approximately 4 foot wide open gate and partially obscured behind said open gate...which swung in, of course. The entrance was 10 feet across, so I would think the gates would be around 4 feet wide each.

For one, Swansons recollections of a report he read do not constitute a standard of historical accuracy, Secondly, a footway is often used in lieu of the word sidewalk ...we'll call it Westernized English-speak VS Traditional English, ....and there was no sidewalk in the passageway. Its outside the gates. The passageway by the by was made of cobblestones, referred to a few different times by a few different sources.

Last time Ill say it, because its simply a non debateable fact...to accept Israels account as it was given to reporters, (long before Swansons recollections of it), means that you must accept that Liz Stride was on the ground with an assailant above her 2 times in her last few meager minutes. And If cd could have his way,... by 2 different men no less!!

Once, just outside the gates as a result of her resisting being pulled into the street by BSM and then falling backward, the second is when she is a few yards away, now inside the passage, almost behind the open gate. The first is said to have occurred at approximately 12:45..the second time would be, approximately, between 12:46 and 12:56.

That is the reason I suggest IF Israel saw anything like he described Sunday evening, it was probably something he saw happen at the spot where Liz is actually murdered, not where he says he saw her fall. Because I dont believe 2 altercations within minutes that result in Liz Stride being on the ground and someone standing above her is a warranted supposition, surely not by the physical evidence.

If he saw the altercation then he likely saw the murder actually happening, and if thats the case, then he was inside the passageway...cause thats where it happened.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon
Bagster Phillips commented at the Inquest that the amount of bleeding (presumably referring to the stream of blood down the gulley to the drain, plus the pound of clotted blood found near the throat) was exceptional.

In medical terms this is a slow bleed out (about a minute and a half estimated) so could this in fact be the arterial spray from a partial severing, and could the angle of the head have restricted the flow from the wound allowing it to spray into the gutter and thence stream down the gulley? Blackwell certainly seems to attribute it to the partial nature of the severance.

Hi Dave.
Yes, indeed. There must have been arterial spray, but none was seen on the wall or surrounding cobbles, so yes this occurred to me too.

Stride was already in the position she was found when the knife was pulled across her throat. The spray hit the cobbles, followed by the outflow of arterial blood which covered it up, so no spray visible seen by anyone.

I'd like to believe the scarf might've restricted the flow, but alas the doctors both make a point of saying that all her clothing was clean of blood. In fact in at least one of the press accounts I've read (your favourite paper Jon!) the scarf or handkerchief is actually produced by Bagster Phillips at the Inquest.

I find it interesting that the knot was pulled tight on her left side, but that she was also laid on her left side. Indicative to me that the scarf was pulled tight when she was upright, the only clue to her being partially strangled, so far as I can see.

So yes she dies where she's found, most likely horizontal or close to...and as the cachous are found clasped in her hand, then they had to have stayed put all through the process of her being forced there by whoever forced her there (I say forced because I assume we're agreed she didn't get down there voluntarily)...so whether we like it or not, they DID stay put through a violent takedown by someone!

Right, though not starting at the gate the cachous were in her hand at the commencement of the final assault. What events and what period of time passed between the two assaults is hard to quantify.
(I'm sure you disagree )

....... unless Schwartz can be evidentially discredited, which in turn seems to be precluded by the Met's belief in him (almost certainly on more evidence than we currently have) as late as 6th November at least.

Agreed, we must accept the evidence given by Schwartz considering the official views expressed by Swanson, etc.

So there is a small point of disagreement, a scenario involving one assault, or two.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike/Jon

I too am wearying of this and feel we may end up agreeing to differ, but like you, one more time.

The passage/yard was, I believe about nine feet wide, and each gate would therefore approximate to 4ft 6". These were open, folded back flush with the walls at the time of the attack, and are only really relevant because when the Police closed them later, the right hand one (viewed from the street) just cleared Liz Stride's feet, giving us a good estimate of how little distance she lay in the yard...perhaps as little as two yards...Blackwell estimates three at the Inquest.

Now I don't know about you but that's only between half and two thirds the total length of my sitting room or dining room...not far...two or three strides (no pun intended)...

So Schwartz has followed BSMan up the West side of Berner Street (same side as the Yard) from Commercial Road, and just before he gets level with the yard he saw Liz previously waiting on the threshold, firstly engaged in conversation with, then being pulled about by BSMan...how is that impossible for him to see?

Feeling nervous and wishing to avoid trouble he started crossing the road towards the east side, (diagonally as you do). As he drew level with the yard, or just beyond he (a) saw Pipeman and (b) heard a louder disturbance in the Yard. He looked back and saw Liz thrown/pushed/manhandled into the yard and down to the ground, she sobbing out in panic. He didn't fancy what he saw/heard, didn't know if PM was involved or not, and fled.

I'm not suggesting there were two altercations, just one slightly more prolonged one between a panic-stricken woman and a single-minded killer...could you not bundle a relatively slight woman that small distance?

Nothing is impossible in that account chaps...and allowing only a little latitude for what he thought he saw and what he actually saw, in the semi-dark (which might well've been the murder kicking off) plus any translational faux pas, there is no real reason to doubt his testimony at all.

Sorry

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hello Michael.

Last time Ill say it, because its simply a non debateable fact...to accept Israels account as it was given to reporters, (long before Swansons recollections of it), means that you must accept that Liz Stride was on the ground with an assailant above her 2 times in her last few meager minutes. And If cd could have his way,... by 2 different men no less!!

C.D. is not alone in this view.

Because I dont believe 2 altercations within minutes that result in Liz Stride being on the ground and someone standing above her is a warranted supposition, surely not by the physical evidence.

Well, three pieces of evidence are consistent with a 'two assault' scenario.

We have already discussed the unlikelyhood of Stride retaining hold of the cachous through being cast to the ground twice. Naturally, we might expect her to use her hands to cushion her fall when pushed/pulled by BS-man.

There is also the matter of her scarf being pulled very tight, yet Schwartz makes no mention of this in his account. So, someone used the scarf to pull her around or strangle her while standing.

Third, her clothes displayed evidence that her body hit the ground twice.
Mud on her right side, and well plastered with mud on her left side.

On her right side it was less so, and none on her head, or significantly, on her hands. Would you use your hands to break your fall if someone cast you to the ground?
No mud on her hands!
Why not? - well, possibly they found no mud on her hands because when she got up she naturally would wipe them. Most people would, wouldn't they?

None of which is proof by any means, yet can be recognised as consistent with her being thrown down twice. The first time she was conscious, and got up, cleaned her hands, steps back into the yard, took out the cachous, and the situation calmed down.

Within minutes she is pulled by the scarf, half strangled, she faints to her left and as she hits the ground her killer sliced her throat.

[lynn cates]

scarf pull

Hello Jon.

"I find it interesting that the knot was pulled tight on her left side, but that she was also laid on her left side. Indicative to me that the scarf was pulled tight when she was upright"

Precisely. As per my re-enactment.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

left side

Hello (again) Jon.

"Third, her clothes displayed evidence that her body hit the ground twice.
Mud on her right side, and well plastered with mud on her left side."

If she had hit the ground on her right side, there would surely be more than "a small amount of mud" there.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

Lynn,
In answer to your post 298,12.45 time of death is not evidence.It is a claim,so far unsupported by evidence,that is the time she died.

There is no evidence Pipeman ran away in fear.The information given is that he followed for a distance.How far cannot be determined.What is not known is when he departed the area.He certainly can be considered to have had opportunity to return.

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon.

"Third, her clothes displayed evidence that her body hit the ground twice.
Mud on her right side, and well plastered with mud on her left side."

If she had hit the ground on her right side, there would surely be more than "a small amount of mud" there.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Hard to say isn't it.
Picture her not being thrown down fully on her right side but down on her thigh, supporting herself with both hands, only her right thigh makes contact with the ground.

This is rough but shows my concept. Mud only on her thigh and down.



Oops, way too big, sorry.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I could go with Liz going into the corner with BS Man if she had been drinking - that's possible - your inhibitions are eroded.

But, it appears she was lying down when her throat was cut. To me, this is inconsistent with BS Man's supposed wanton attack in the street. Rendering her unable to defend herself, lying her down and cutting her throat seems wholly inconsistent with attacking her in the street and throwing her down
onto the floor with Liz supposedly crying out.

There is also the issue of no bruising fround upon Liz. In order to throw her down he must have used force, and this force should really have led to bruising.

Then you add in that no one heard this event, and Mortimer was possibly at her door at this time.

On balance, I would say the BS Man attack is an unimaginative creation of a non existent event.

This would then put the 'clerk' right in the frame. He is seen talking to Liz at 12.35, and as the statement is given by a policeman, then there is little doubt in my mind that this did happen. I would say that a man seen in the company of a murdered woman, 10-15 minutes prior to her murder, near the murder location; automatically becomes a person of interest.

The problem with this is that the man seen with Eddowes doesn't match up, so if you believe Liz was killed by the same man, which I do, then you have to believe that one of these man seen very close to the murder location and very close to the the time of the murder, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Weighing the two up: Eddowes identified only by her clothes but closer to the discovery of the body time wise, and Stride identified by means of more detail but not as close to the discovery of the body. 50/50 I think.

[lynn cates]

"I shall return."

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"In answer to your post 298, 12.45 time of death is not evidence."

You mean has no supporting evidence? Well, Blackwell's time includes the window 12.46-12.56. 1.00 has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

"It is a claim, so far unsupported by evidence, that is the time she died."

See above.

"There is no evidence Pipeman ran away in fear."

That's true. And there is no evidence that pipeman ran away after Schwartz. All we have is a story--uncorroborated.

"The information given is that he followed for a distance. How far cannot be determined."

IS said not so far as himself.

"What is not known is when he departed the area. He certainly can be considered to have had opportunity to return."

Which is well and good--especially if Liz were kind enough to have voluntarily gone into suspended animation awaiting his re-arrival.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Fleetwood

There is also the issue of no bruising fround upon Liz. In order to throw her down he must have used force, and this force should really have led to bruising.

But according to The Times Inquest account" there was "bruising over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since". Other news accounts I've looked at are similarly worded.

To be fair this seems to suggest a forcing down or a manhandling (possibly that witnessed by Schwartz, possibly not) rather than a throwing, but the blueish discolouration to the front of the chest may also be indicative of violence.

If the Daily News/London Evening News accounts of Mrs Mortimers vigil are nearer the truth then she may only claim to have been outside from hearing footsteps for about ten minutes, possibly 1245/1250 to 1255/0100 and so missed the action.

All the best

Dave