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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

An interesting thought nevertheless.

From what I understand the Coroner directs the Inquest, the Jury still must hear all evidence available. So, the Coroner will not hear evidence in-camera, as they say today.

In considering such a scenario I can't help thinking that the press would have got hold of the fact that a session was being held without any public or media present.
I'm sure we would have heard about it, if by no other means than criticisms voiced in the papers.

P.S.
He may hear evidence in-camera to decide if it is worthy to bring before the Jury, but clearly what Schwartz had to say clears that hurdle.

So, that is not what occurred on October 4?

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Garry. Thanks.

You describe well what happened in Polly and Annie's cases. But my point is that one cannot move from:

"It is the case that X."

to

"Agent A intended that X."

Intentions/motivations are difficult to pin down.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Lynn. I missed this response to my post.

"Cutting was this man’s primary motivation"

How on earth can we know that? Merely an assumption.

It's quite straightforward. The murderer immobilized his victims by partial strangulation then killed them via near-decapitation. Had his intent been merely to murder these women he could at this point have walked away having achieved his goal. But he didn't. He remained with the bodies in order to inflict a series of sharp force injuries. Thus the strangulation was conducted in order to facilitate the killing, and the killing provided the means by which he was able to cut and stab a passive body.

[Michael W Richards]

Cutting was this man’s primary motivation, Trev.

Which killer are we talking about Gary, because you cannot make the above case for Liz Strides killer for certain, and you cannot make that case for the 2 murders that precede Strides, as their killer was determined by the senior medical investigator and the coroner to have killed so that he could mutilate the abdomen and take organs from within.

The motivation for the murders is where all the Truth lies....WHY they were killed would tell us who we should be looking for, and as Ive said all along, its not very likely that its one man.

Polly and Annies killers motivation was as described above, by the evidence alone it cannot be said conclusively why Liz Stride was murdered, only that she was not killed by someone driven by "cutting". Kates killer may have been so motivated...maybe Mary too...maybe those murders share a murderer. But it remains possible that Kate was killed for other reasons as was Mary. Particularly Mary...considering the venue and the probability of her killer being known to her.

Best regards

[Hunter]

I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss this...

You are correct, Trevor.

[Wickerman]

Precisely

I was merely negating the suggestion that all the victims were strangled first but of course as usual with me you have to make a big issue out of it.

I thought you said that to suggest, "...rendering them unconscious, doesn't stand up to scrutiny".

Did I miss the scrutiny?

[c.d.]

Some of the arguments put forth here remind me of a scene at the end of Wes Anderson's comedy film "Bottle Rocket", in which the "gang" is robbing a warehouse after Dignan has conducted surveillance on it a couple of times, by watching the comings and goings with binoculars.

He is surprised to find the workers actually in the factory when they are trying to rob it...

Dignan: "What are you guys doing here? You always go to lunch at 1 o'clock..."

Worker: "Not always.."

Dignan: "Yes, always!"

The problem of making assumptions about behavior based on a small data set.

Indeed!

c.d.

[robhouse]

Some of the arguments put forth here remind me of a scene at the end of Wes Anderson's comedy film "Bottle Rocket", in which the "gang" is robbing a warehouse after Dignan has conducted surveillance on it a couple of times, by watching the comings and goings with binoculars.

He is surprised to find the workers actually in the factory when they are trying to rob it...

Dignan: "What are you guys doing here? You always go to lunch at 1 o'clock..."

Worker: "Not always.."

Dignan: "Yes, always!"

The problem of making assumptions about behavior based on a small data set.

[lynn cates]

And it shall be a sign unto you.

Hello Garry.

"clenched fists, swollen tongues"

Clenched fists? Well, now we can bring in Liz.

Swollen tongues? Try Polly and Annie--protruding and lacerated.

The rest?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

lingually speaking

Hello Trevor.

"Well you stick with your theories I will stick with mine those being that he cut their throats from behind and didn't strangle them first."

The first two were. Look at the condition of their tongues.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

motivation

Hello (again) Garry.

"Cutting was this man’s primary motivation"

How on earth can we know that? Merely an assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

all things visible and invisible

Hello Garry. Thanks.

"Eddowes and Kelly too, Lynn."

Indeed? What were they?

Of course, I have been given to understand that Liz had INVISIBLE signs of strangulation. Perhaps they, too?

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Well you stick with your theories I will stick with mine those being that he cut their throats from behind and didn't strangle them first.

There were clear signs of strangulation in Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, Trev - clenched fists, swollen tongues and so forth. Bond also noted the presence of ecchymosis around Kelly's throat. Additionally, the arterial blood spray found on the fence at the Hanbury Street crime scene confirms that Chapman's throat was cut whilst she was on the ground and lying on her back. Substitute bed for ground and an identical pattern may be observed with regard to the Miller's Court murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.


As above.


You do, Trev, and it does.


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.

Well you stick with your theories I will stick with mine those being that he cut their throats from behind and didn't strangle them first.

I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss this, not that i want to because it has been done to death in the past and i have better things to do with my time on a saturday afternoon.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Precisely

I was merely negating the suggestion that all the victims were strangled first but of course as usual with me you have to make a big issue out of it.