The Cachous

[lynn cates]

Let there be light.

Hello Batman.

"Swanson's statement taken from Schwartz also included that he identified the body."

Ah! So suddenly, he can see again? Too bad about the temporary blindness from the flowers.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John.

"He mentions the man stop and speak to the woman, who was stood in the gateway."

But you omitted the most important part:

"If you don't mind, would you be so kind as to take a few steps backward my dear? My forthcoming assault MUST be such as to bedevil ripperologists a century hence." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, unless I've misunderstood, I believe that Jon Guy's argument is that Schwartz witnessed the actual murder and that Stride was thrown into the Yard. This is clearly a cleverly worked out argument, but I can't accept it. Thus, the Police Report clearly refers to Stride being thrown on to the footway. From memory, I believe when I mentioned this to Jon, he countered by stating that there was no footway on Berner Street. However, in Begg and Bennett, 2014, there is a photograph of Berner Street from 1909, and a footway, or path, is clearly depicted, running along the side of the street and past the Dutfield's Yard gates.

[John G]

At the risk of causing uproar [ I sometimes enjoy being provocative!] I think the cachous problem needs to be expanded to include the flower problem. In other words, how did something so delicate, and possibly lightly attached, survive Stride being thrown on to the footway? And why were there no petals on the footway, or street, as there were in the yard?

[lynn cates]

nonsense

Hello John. Thanks.Yes, but I fail to see the clever part. Also, she would be screaming with a cut throat.

Makes no sense.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

But doesn't this create a further difficulty? White petals were found scattered in the Yard, but not outside the Yard where Stride was thrown to the ground.

Hi John.
Unless they blew inside the yard, Diemschitz did say "it was rather windy".
The yard was swilled down before 5:00 am, but that likely only refers to the location of the blood, not the entire yard.
There was no time stated as to when the petals were noticed, but it was said to be around where the body was found.

[Batman]

Stride killed by anarchists is just another old Buck's Row butcher myth

Hello John.

"He mentions the man stop and speak to the woman, who was stood in the gateway."

But you omitted the most important part:

"If you don't mind, would you be so kind as to take a few steps backward my dear? My forthcoming assault MUST be such as to bedevil ripperologists a century hence." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Ah, no, its only you and few others finding it confusing. The contemporary accepted Stride as a Ripper victim. The inquest makes that clear after pointing out why the copycat idea is irrelevant and sets it aside concluding the same murderer was responsible as Nichols and Chapman. Which of course means your suspect who was in jail at the time can't have committed any of those murders and places him with a perfect alibi (law enforcement).

Yes its just a few steps back. Where Schwartz saw the assault and where her body was found is a few feet away a few minutes after. Its a no-brainer really.

However if one wants to go from sweets in her hand, to flowers on her clothes indicating some sort of club conspiracy then surely such trivial mysteries mean you can do the same thing for every other murder.

As correctly pointed out Chapman had pills in a wrapper beside her. Are we therefore to conclude some conspiracy of the lodgers at Hanbury St?

This is just the old, slaughterhouse on Buck's Row therefore a butcher killed Nichols hypothesis gone absolutely haywire. Now Anarchists are killing prostitutes!

I suppose the inhabitants of Miller's Court are some of the most depraved mutilators to have existed.

Stride killed by anarchists is just another old Buck's Row butcher myth reformulated. Which mean for something that sucks so bad.......... its not even original!

[Jon Guy]

Yes, unless I've misunderstood, I believe that Jon Guy's argument is that Schwartz witnessed the actual murder and that Stride was thrown into the Yard. This is clearly a cleverly worked out argument, but I can't accept it. .

It`s not a cleverly worked out argument, John, in fact, it` so simple even Lynn could understand it.

Thus, the Police Report clearly refers to Stride being thrown on to the footway. From memory, I believe when I mentioned this to Jon, he countered by stating that there was no footway on Berner Street. However, in Begg and Bennett, 2014, there is a photograph of Berner Street from 1909, and a footway, or path, is clearly depicted, running along the side of the street and past the Dutfield's Yard gates.

Just had another look at that photo, and as I remembered, the footway breaks off at the entrance to the gates.
But it`s not important, as we are all just reading Swanson`s summary of the Schwartz statement, and even then I suspect the original statement was translated by someone on Schwartz`s behalf.

[Batman]

Even if there was a footpath in 1888 it wouldn't be much of one because its a gateway entrance! Things with hooves and wheels didn't mount some curb going in.

If someone is standing IN the gateway then they can only land on either side of it if thrown to the ground. In this case Schwartz opts for the ground in front of the gateway not the ground on the other side of the gateway. However the distances involved are at the most minimal not the most extreme, like onto the road or anything like that. The road is simply a landmark of direction. She was first pulled that way, as in grabbed while she stood there and pulled towards him before being thrown down on the ground.

To be honest why its boggling anyone's mind to get her from that position to a foot or two around the corner, especially with her neck handkerchief we know was used to choke her, this can't have been some impossible mission where we need a Tom Cruise character to ninja it for him.

[John G]

It`s not a cleverly worked out argument, John, in fact, it` so simple even Lynn could understand it.



Just had another look at that photo, and as I remembered, the footway breaks off at the entrance to the gates.
But it`s not important, as we are all just reading Swanson`s summary of the Schwartz statement, and even then I suspect the original statement was translated by someone on Schwartz`s behalf.

Hello Jon,

Yes, you're correct. However, the way I read the police account she is pulled away from where she was standing toward the street. She was then spun round and thrown on the footway. Now, as the footway runs up to the gateway on both sides, this seems logical to me, particularly as BS man was no doubt stronger than the woman and may have pulled her a good distance toward the street, I.e so that she ends up in the gap between where the footway breaks off on either side, prior to being spun and thrown to the ground

I think it is also worth noting that the Yard itself was cloaked in darkness-so much so that Louis D originally thought he was looking down at a bundle of rags, and Lave couldn't see the door to get back in. Therefore, if she'd been stood away from the gate and into the Yard, I doubt Schwartz would have been able to see her.

[John G]

Even if there was a footpath in 1888 it wouldn't be much of one because its a gateway entrance! Things with hooves and wheels didn't mount some curb going in.

If someone is standing IN the gateway then they can only land on either side of it if thrown to the ground. In this case Schwartz opts for the ground in front of the gateway not the ground on the other side of the gateway. However the distances involved are at the most minimal not the most extreme, like onto the road or anything like that. The road is simply a landmark of direction. She was first pulled that way, as in grabbed while she stood there and pulled towards him before being thrown down on the ground.

To be honest why its boggling anyone's mind to get her from that position to a foot or two around the corner, especially with her neck handkerchief we know was used to choke her, this can't have been some impossible mission where we need a Tom Cruise character to ninja it for him.

She ended up a significant distance inside the Yard. As noted before, if she'd been dragged that far her dress would have been torn and her body grazed and bruised, which it wasn't. She would also have been given ample opportunity to cry out. It's an extremely unlikely scenario in my view.

[Wickerman]

Yes, the mention of a footway is a bit of a misnomer, the entry was graded down from the gateway to the street level using what looks like cobbles, or set stones. The actual footpath/footway was broken at this point on either side of the gateway, much like where Polly Nichols was found.
I suspect in this case "footway" only indicates the area immediately outside the gates, even though it was cobbled, and not paving flags.

[John G]

Yes, the mention of a footway is a bit of a misnomer, the entry was graded down from the gateway to the street level using what looks like cobbles, or set stones. The actual footpath/footway was broken at this point on either side of the gateway, much like where Polly Nichols was found.
I suspect in this case "footway" only indicates the area immediately outside the gates, even though it was cobbled, and not paving flags.

I agree. It doesn't make any sense to me that the term "footway" would have been used to describe an area inside the gate.

[Batman]

She ended up a significant distance inside the Yard.

This is really stretching things. Significant in terms of where Schwartz saw her being thrown to the ground, but not significant for an alternative killer hypothesis at all. She is literally just a few feet in from where she was found.

As noted before, if she'd been dragged that far her dress would have been torn

There is nothing on a rainy muddy night to say that she must have torn her dress after being dragged a few feet by her neckerchief. Since the upper portion of the body would be up off the ground, it would only last two or three seconds at the most. You would basically have to show that every example of a homicide where someone was dragged shows a torn part of clothing.

Mud is on both sides of her jacket. So she didn't just hit the mud on her left side.

"... and her body grazed and bruised, which it wasn't."

Yes it was, considerably so. Again her body shows significant bruising on the shoulders and on her chest. The pathologists said they couldn't conclusively say if it was old or recent, but noted them. In light of Schwartz there is no reason to believe they are old.

She would also have been given ample opportunity to cry out. It's an extremely unlikely scenario in my view.

You can't cry out if your voice box is being suppressed by a neckerchief obviously. It was suppressed too, that's a fact of the forensic pathology report.

[Wickerman]

Yes it was, considerably so. Again her body shows significant bruising on the shoulders and on her chest. The pathologists said they couldn't conclusively say if it was old or recent, but noted them. In light of Schwartz there is no reason to believe they are old.

To be honest Batman, if I was told the victim had been assaulted and cast to the ground I would be looking for bruises & scrapes on the heels of her hands, elbows, knees, hips, etc. Likewise for mud at the same points of contact.

If I found none, I might be suspicious about the accuracy of that claim, or perhaps consider this was a different individual.

Bruises on the chest, or front of shoulders, does not indicate contact with the ground.

[John G]

This is really stretching things. Significant in terms of where Schwartz saw her being thrown to the ground, but not significant for an alternative killer hypothesis at all. She is literally just a few feet in from where she was found.



There is nothing on a rainy muddy night to say that she must have torn her dress after being dragged a few feet by her neckerchief. Since the upper portion of the body would be up off the ground, it would only last two or three seconds at the most. You would basically have to show that every example of a homicide where someone was dragged shows a torn part of clothing.

Mud is on both sides of her jacket. So she didn't just hit the mud on her left side.



Yes it was, considerably so. Again her body shows significant bruising on the shoulders and on her chest. The pathologists said they couldn't conclusively say if it was old or recent, but noted them. In light of Schwartz there is no reason to believe they are old.



You can't cry out if your voice box is being suppressed by a neckerchief obviously. It was suppressed too, that's a fact of the forensic pathology report.

She was found several yards away from the footway not just a few feet. Her back and legs were not bruised or grazed, and a bit of mud is not the same as a suit of armour. And, as you point out, the bruising that was present may have been old. She would have had plenty of time to cry out before her assailant grabbed the scarf.