The Cachous

[lynn cates]

100 times

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"Anyway if you claim pulling a scarf causes a hand to clench . . ."

Depends on where the scarf is located. Around the neck, yes. Try it. Sudden pressure causes hands to clench and move to the area.

". . . you have given every reason why a scarf drag around the corner would have her holding onto the sweets too. You have given BSman a way."

Repeat after me: Liz was NOT dragged.

Now go to the board and write it 100 times.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hoo boy

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Declaring something doesn't make it so . . ."

Absolutely. So knock it off.

". . . and adding ad hominems shows there is no argument against it."

Not necessarily. Using ad hominem arguments might indicate the one using them is inept at argument. You should know.

"The only reason you accuse some club members if not the whole lot is because that is near where the body was found. That's it."

Accuse them? Of what? Concocting a silly story that gullible people like you have swallowed?

"John G has said you need a cool and calculating murderer to do it all silently but your club member conspiracy theory has them suddenly killing someone without planning (or else they could have carted off the body with ease)."

This once again illustrates the shallowness of your reasoning skills. I do NOT implicate the club for Liz's murder. If you were able to read critically you would know that.

"Stranger killings are called stranger killings for a reason. So the anarchists turned prostitute murderers for a night is just like saying whoever discovers the body did it."

This nonsense deserves no reply.

For the love of ALL that's holy, PLEASE learn to analyse BEFORE you spew nonsense.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

Only with 3) you make somewhat of a point, although it doesn't mean that Stride's feet needed to have almost touched the gate when it was being closed. A foot away would not be stretching Lamb's remark that Stride's feet extended just to the swing of the gate.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank

The other two are relevant points too, as Lamb was the only one trained to make those observations, and Lamb is pretty clear in what he says.

Also, Strides legs were drawn up in a foetal position, so if her legs were stretched out they would be a foot or two closer to the gateway (unless she was killed whilst crouching having a pee in the gateway)

[John G]

"I don't know what any of this means for our falling woman, but it does mean that the manner of her impact was in no way set in stone. It is likely that she would put her hands down. But no more than likely."

Agreed. And unfortunately that is the best that we can conclude. But that is just one of the many red flags in the B.S. man as Stride's killer scenario. Although each of those red flags can be explained with an alternative explanation, it is the sheer number of red flags that should give us pause.

c.d.

Yes, ultimately this is what bothers me. Firstly, we have the issue of the cachous surviving the fall. Secondly, we have the flower surviving the fall. Thirdly, there's the lack of bruising or grazing to Stride's body. Fouthly, the fact that no one apart from Schwartz saw or heard the altercation. Fifthly, the failure of the couple seen by Mortimer to come forward (and, of course, she also stated that they would have seen the altercation, so they would have been able to support Schwartz's testimony). Sixthly, major contradictions between the police and newspaper account. Seventhly, Schwartz not mentioning a knife. Eightly, no clear evidence that Pipeman was discovered. Ninethly, Brown's evidence, which contradicts Schwartz. Tenthly, Schwartz's failure to mention the flower. Eleventhly, newspaper reports suggesting that Schwartz's account wasn't completely accepted. Twelfthly, if Marshall's evidence is accepted, then BS man must have been wandering around the neighbourhood for over an hour, expressing patience, charm and self control: so why choose such an unsuitable place to commit murder, in such a clumsy and indecisive way, in front of witnesses? Thirteenthly, if Stride was killed by JtR, then that suggests an inconsistent MO, I.e attacking a victim in a public area in front of witnesses, with no knife drawn. Fourteenthly, if she was killed by JtR, then he took an enormous risk in murdering Stride, presumably with the intention of mutilating, knowing that Schwartz/Pipeman might return with a police officer:JtR may have been crazy, but was he that crazy?

No doubt explanations will be found for each of these problems, although some may be somewhat convoluted or involve giving a completely different interpretation to Schwartz's account, I.e he pushed/forced to the ground rather then threw. But, in the end, there are just too many red flags for me.

[Errata]

If Stride took the cachous out after being thrown to the ground (which would explain why they didn't spill) wouldn't that seem to indicate that her being thrown to the ground was a minor event and not some brutal attack and that she felt no fear at that time?

It would also negate the argument that the B.S. man immediately forced her back into the passage way as Schwartz left the scene since there would have been no time to take them out.

If the B.S. man did not immediately attempt to take her back into the passage way and there was an argument/and or an offer of cachous, this is all time in which Schwartz could have been seeking out the nearest P.C. Not a real smart move on the part of the B.S. man.

c.d.

I'm pretty sure it was shakedown. Like if she owed them money, or she knew something. They scare her, but they don't really hurt her, they run off after Schwartz (or one does, and the other follows because "we were in the middle of something" or whatever) and she ducks through the fence and crosses the street. She doesn't think they'll be back, message received, and she pulls out the cachous.

And that is how her killer found her.

And maybe they came back. And it was those two guys. Maybe they realized that she wasn't going to give them what they wanted, whatever that was, and they killed her. Jerked her backwards, cut her throat, lay her to the side.

Or they didn't come back and someone else killed her.

Or one of the guys stayed with her and convinced her she was safe enough, and then killed her once he knew he didn't need her.

Nobody lets their guard down immediately after an assault in a personal relationship. Oddly enough people do it in a professional (criminal) relationship all the time. My best friend used to drink with his dealer friend after he got beatings for not paying. I never understood it, but they both said it was pretty normal. I have since heard the same from many others. I guess how quickly the "relationship" recovers is based on whether or not you felt betrayed. And foreseen consequences don't feel like betrayal. So they could have been chatting almost immediately after one of them ran off.

Some things you don't take personally. I was friends with a girl who took out my knee in a lacrosse game on purpose. It was dick move, but I didn't take it personally. I'd given her a concussion a few weeks previous, again, on purpose. And once I explained that she could have given me a permanent limp, she never did it again. And now I know I could have given her early onset Alzheimers, so I feel bad about that. I'm pretty sure I didn't, but I hit her in the head with my stick rather a lot.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Looking at your post #246 reminds me of the peace of God--it passes understanding. I have no idea where or how you arrive at this hopeless jumble.

However, we DO agree on one thing. You said something about a "no-brainer." Obvious example.

Cheers.
LC

Ah! So you admit it- you DO Beleive in god.
I knew it! ; )

[Abby Normal]

This is literally the best insult I have ever read. Never before this moment have I called in my fiance from another room to read something on this board, and I was laughing so hard I could only just sort of wave at my screen.

Batman, it has nothing to with agreeing or disagreeing with the content.

But that was just poetry. Really I just have to pause and admire it before going back to content.

Have to admit . Coming from a poet. Twas a beautiful thing.

But Hold fast young Batman!

We have reality on our side.

[c.d.]

Hi c4
Yes I have and thanks for as Lynn so eloquently put it, by the peace of God, someone else says it!

Except that her body was not found where Schwartz said he last saw her.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Errata,

Don`t agree. Tied loosely over the er.. bosom there would have been plenty of room. I donīt mean that the knot was particularly loose, but that scarf/neckerchief was hung loosely round the neck.

While I`m on this subject, the translation of "threw her to the ground" could have been wrongly expressed, in the heat of the moment and by two exitable Hungarians. If we can accept that "screamed three times but not loudly" as "cried out three times", I think "threw her to the ground" could just as well have been "forced her to the ground". Not as dramatic, but I think quite likely. Forced her to the ground/pavement, grab and twist the scarf (choking her into unconsciousness, if only briefly) and then cutting the throat. I still think that the blood on the back of her hand could have got there by her coming to and putting her hand to her throat before passing out again.

Probably have said all this before, but there you are.

Best wishes,

C4

Hi c4
Yes I have and thanks for as Lynn so eloquently put it, by the peace of God, someone else says it!

[c.d.]

"I don't know what any of this means for our falling woman, but it does mean that the manner of her impact was in no way set in stone. It is likely that she would put her hands down. But no more than likely."

Agreed. And unfortunately that is the best that we can conclude. But that is just one of the many red flags in the B.S. man as Stride's killer scenario. Although each of those red flags can be explained with an alternative explanation, it is the sheer number of red flags that should give us pause.

c.d.

[c.d.]

If Stride took the cachous out after being thrown to the ground (which would explain why they didn't spill) wouldn't that seem to indicate that her being thrown to the ground was a minor event and not some brutal attack and that she felt no fear at that time?

It would also negate the argument that the B.S. man immediately forced her back into the passage way as Schwartz left the scene since there would have been no time to take them out.

If the B.S. man did not immediately attempt to take her back into the passage way and there was an argument/and or an offer of cachous, this is all time in which Schwartz could have been seeking out the nearest P.C. Not a real smart move on the part of the B.S. man.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello (again) CD. Ah! Someone FINALLY does some empirical experimentation.

I could kiss you! Well, maybe not. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I have to say that I am flattered but it would at least take dinner and a movie.

c.d.

[Errata]

Being Swedish,Elizabeth was possibly wearing a bib scarf.

Rather like a cravat,but worn to the side.

It was described as a silk handkerchief around her neck. I think it was simply knotted around her neck. And those things are not even nearly as big as bandannas, so I think whatever style choice she made, sh had no choice but to knot it pretty close to the neck.

[John G]

Hi DJA,

Thanks for that. I would have thought, therefore, dragging someone with such a small scarf would have been virtually impossible.

[DJA]

Being Swedish,Elizabeth was possibly wearing a bib scarf.

Rather like a cravat,but worn to the side.