Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[Wickerman]

Now do I hear the words "ah but he only strangled them to render them unconscious" well that doesn't stand up either. If the killer goes to the lengths of strangling them its a continuing process to carry on and kill them by the same method

I'd like to know how the killer is supposed to determine an unconscious body, from a dead one, in the dark, in a hurry.
Do you think he is going to be bothered feeling for a pulse, or simply cut her throat, and have done with it.

[Garry Wroe]

But of course if that be the case and he had a design on their organs why go to all the trouble of carrying out the mutilations and ripping open the abdomens.

The killer would have needed to do at least some cutting in order to access the internal organs, Trev. What we know to be true of such killers, however, is that the mutilations have a sadosexual component, an element that motivates the crimes in the first place. As for the abstracted organs, Albert Fish remained in a state of hypersexual excitement during the nine or so days that it took him to consume the body parts of Grace Budd. Hence such crimes are defined as lust killings.

Why not simply strangle them and then remove the organs much more easily than it would to have removed organs given the state of the bodies and the abdomens in particular.

As above.

Now do I hear the words "ah but he only strangled them to render them unconscious" well that doesn't stand up either.

You do, Trev, and it does.

If the killer goes to the lengths of strangling them its a continuing process to carry on and kill them by the same method

Cutting was this man’s primary motivation, Trev. Subduing a victim by way of partial strangulation was merely the means by which he was able to inflict a series of sharp force injuries on an inanimate woman. Sutcliffe used a hammer. Others have used alcohol, sleeping pills or even gas. In each case this subduing process was simply a means to an end.

[Trevor Marriott]

Eddowes and Kelly too, Lynn.

But of course if that be the case and he had a design on their organs why go to all the trouble of carrying out the mutilations and ripping open the abdomens.

Why not simply strangle them and then remove the organs much more easily than it would to have removed organs given the state of the bodies and the abdomens in particular.

Now do I hear the words "ah but he only strangled them to render them unconscious" well that doesn't stand up either. If the killer goes to the lengths of strangling them its a continuing process to carry on and kill them by the same method

You cant have your cake and eat it.

[Garry Wroe]

"But then we know that the Ripper subdued his known victims by way of manual strangulation"

Certainly true of Polly and Annie.

Eddowes and Kelly too, Lynn.

[lynn cates]

Smith

Hello Cris.

"You know, no flowers seen on the woman's lapel when PC Smith (a policeman) had seen such on the identified victim before Brown stated he saw the couple."

Indeed. That is why I have NO reservations about Smith's sighting.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

manual strangulation

Hello Garry.

"But then we know that the Ripper subdued his known victims by way of manual strangulation"

Certainly true of Polly and Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bodies

Hello Pat. Thanks.

Actually, I meant with respect to the post mortem determinations.

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

Could the corsage have been made of fake flowers?

[Wickerman]

I strongly suspect you're right...A corsage (how else to describe a rose over maidenhair fern) doesn't somehow seem the sort of thing a woman would've bought for herself...

Hello Dave.
But where does one get a Rose from in October?, from what I understand Roses were not in season, in October, in those days.
The other description suggested by Gardner was, Dahlias, at least they were in season.
Regardless, it is more likely that the man bought her this, than herself.

[Paddy]

C.D

By struggle, I was thinking more of her hand and/or arm in the way just as he went to cut. I doubt that would have produced any evidence that it occurred.

Wasn't there mention of unexplained blood on the back of her hand? Anyone know what that was all about?

Pat............................................... ......

[Hunter]

Posted by Hunter - "Well, the obvious answer would be that Swanson didn't consider Brown's statement useful enough to include in his report to the HO-- maybe even confusing."


Thats so illogical it hurts Hunter......

Sorry Mike... The last thing I want to do is hurt anyone... especially people I like.

How would that be the obvious answer when Brown does appear at the Inquest and Schwartz does not?

Well, despite what took place at the inquest (and Baxter was prone to come up with his own ideas no matter what the police might have thought) I was suggesting a possible reason why Chief Inspector Swanson would include Schwartz's police testimony in his summary report on the police investigation into the death of Elizabeth Stride, and not the testimony of James Brown. It would be confusing, to say the least, to the people at the Home Office. Enough ended up being confusing to them anyway, apparently.

Swanson knew who he was dealing with. That's one reason why this experienced detective got this job. Warren didn't just pull his name out of a hat. Swanson was representing the police and their investigation, not the coroner. Schwartz's testimony looked like a possible lead, where Brown's offered nothing of the sort. So why add a conflicting testimony into the mix who may have seen someone else anyway?... You know, no flowers seen on the woman's lapel when PC Smith (a policeman) had seen such on the identified victim before Brown stated he saw the couple.

Browns woman did not have a flower pinned to her....did the killer do that, or did PC Smith see someone else with a flower at 12:35am?... Follow the evidence amigo...not your beliefs

You're telling me to follow the evidence, my good friend? Smith identified the victim at the scene as the woman he saw, and in his statement. And... the victim was found with the floral arraignment on her in death.

Sc[h]wartz...not at Inquest...Brown, at Inquest.....so...what did they believe about the events of 12:45 as described by Israel, if they were not presented, noted, referenced or even mentioned?

I've already answered that and I believe it is a sound and reasonable explanation, based upon what the police and the coroner were faced with at the time.

Of course, Mike, I'm always interested in your take on why Swanson included Israel Schwartz's evidence and not James Brown's in his report to the Home Office. He certainly was aware of both.

[Garry Wroe]

By struggle, I was thinking more of her hand and/or arm in the way just as he went to cut. I doubt that would have produced any evidence that it occurred.

It would probably have resulted in a cut to her hand, arm or clothing, CD, to say nothing of bloodstaining as the knife penetrated the throat tissue. But then we know that the Ripper subdued his known victims by way of manual strangulation before inflicting the sharp force wounds, meaning that none of them fought back to any appreciable extent. If Stride really did put up some resistance there is even more reason to question the notion of her having been killed by Jack the Ripper.

[Paddy]

Alice

Hi Lynn

"Yet Alice is a MUCH better fit with Polly and Annie"

If you mean Alice Mckenzie, witnesses thought she was rushing possibly to work (at that late at night) and explained that she sometimes worked for the Jewish people.
Sounds like Liz too?

Pat..................................

[Paddy]

Hi Lynn

So, would I be going out on the proverbial limb were I to suggest that, IF a "boyfriend" had bought it for her, she was not likely soliciting?

As she had had long term relationships before, I would have thought more like looking for a relationship. (long term soliciting so to speak)
The only odd thing was why wasn't she a bit sozzled that night?

I often wondered if she was talking about her bible being left at the lodging house when the chap said "you would say anything but your prayers"

Pat.........................................

[Cogidubnus]

The chap that gave me the corsage stole my mums engagement ring that night, never saw him again !
George is really not a flowers person Dave.

Hi Pat

In which case I definitely stand corrected...and George clearly has much to commend himself for...good for George!

In hindsight, the chap who gave you the corsage sounds (in character) rather like some of the young "ladies" I, as a callow youth, had the dubious pleasure of dating back in those late 60's/early 70s - as a relative pauper I was fortunate enough to escape the worst of their depredations, but get where you're coming from....

All the best

Dave