The Cachous

[John G]

Stride's dead face was described as placid in the Coroner's Court.

There was no evidence of a struggle.

The shoulders had pressure marks,not bruises.

The Swedish Social Democratic Party was formed the following year.
It's emblem became a stylized red rose.
Elizabeth was known to work with both Jews and her own country people.
6 Fashion Street was a Jewish soup kitchen,amongst other things.
She was often seen in that street.Elizabeth Tanner thought she lived there instead of 38 Dorset Street.

Hello DJA,

Good post. Dr Phillips stated: " They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure...they were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion".

He also opined that it would be difficult to say how recently they'd been caused.

[c.d.]

Its often been stated that BS mans attack on Stride was not that big of a deal. Its a domestic and/or whitechapel prostitutes must have been used to this sort of thing-happened all the time.

OK-fine.

But, if this is the case, then surely its no big deal for Stride to have then gone with him voluntarily into the yard-taking the caschous out then. Correct?


And one last question for the Cashoo Crowd: So Its feasible that she could hold on to them through being choked with her scarf, her throat being cut and going to the ground, dying, but not feasible for her to hold onto them through such a minor tussle (according to many)???

Good luck with that one.

Hello Abby,

As a member of the cachous crowd (and "cachous" is the correct spelling) I will attempt to respond but you seem to have rolled a lot of arguments and theories into one so it becomes a bit difficult.

Why would Stride go voluntarily into the yard with a man who had just thrown her into the ground and apparently threatened Schwartz? This seems even more unlikely if it was in fact a "brutal assault or attack" as some like to call it. The argument that it was simply a Whitechapel prostitute being hassled a bit doesn't have the B.S. man as her killer and assumes that he simply left the scene after Schwartz departed so him trying to get Stride into the yard never comes into play.

If it was a domestic, for what purpose would they need to go back into the yard? If he was that angry that he just threw her to the ground the most likely outcome of that would be her getting a good beating. Could she really be that naive to think he "just wanted to talk"? If so, why not do it where Schwartz first saw them? Would they be going back into the yard for sex? Not the most romantic of places if it was a domestic relationship and again Stride had just been thrown to the ground. Hardly a substitute for foreplay for most people.

As for holding on to the cachous, this has been addressed ad nauseum. The arguments for holding them in death have been enumerated many times. Cadaveric spasm for example. But those arguments do not apply to her holding them while being thrown to the ground. It's apples and oranges.

Simply ask a friend to throw themselves on the bed. Don't tell them why. Just say it is an experiment. Then ask them to lay on the floor and push themselves up to a standing position. Finally tell them that you are going to try to drag them against their will and they should try to fend you off. When it is all done ask them what position their palms were in in each case. That should give you your answer.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I just tried the bed experiment. The results were the same as when I did it before. I landed on my hands with palms outstretched. I then tried to fall without extending my hands. I could do it but it seemed very unnatural and I had to make a conscious effort not to extend my hands.

Those were my results. Your mileage may vary.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I just tried the bed experiment. The results were the same as when I did it before. I landed on my hands with palms outstretched. I then tried to fall without extending my hands. I could do it but it seemed very unnatural and I had to make a conscious effort not to extend my hands.

Those were my results. Your mileage may vary.

c.d.

Hi CD
Where in Schwartz statement does it say she used her hands to brace herself?

But for sake of argument, I'll assume she did.

So try your experiment holding a rolled up napkin. You can easily hold onto something when falling to the ground.

Especially if it's something you don't want to spill.

God knows how many times I've fallen down while holding a beer, and never spilled a drop!!

Btw I know how to spell cachews, but I don't really care.. I'll leave that up to you and your cashoo crowd since you hold them so dear. ; )

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

You are right. Schwartz makes no mention of her hands but I doubt that he noticed one way or another.

Not spilling something that you don't want to spill implies a conscious effort was made to do so. I am not sure whether Stride had time to react in that manner.

I really don't want to try the napkin experiment. It sounds like a good way to get an injury to your wrist.

Holding on to beers and purses is not the same as holding on to cachous wrapped in tissue paper. A beer or purse or some other object is taking the brunt of the fall and isn't going to fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't buy the cachous argument because I think it is an extremely important piece of evidence but I can only lead the horse to water.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

You are right. Schwartz makes no mention of her hands but I doubt that he noticed one way or another.

Not spilling something that you don't want to spill implies a conscious effort was made to do so. I am not sure whether Stride had time to react in that manner.

I really don't want to try the napkin experiment. It sounds like a good way to get an injury to your wrist.

Holding on to beers and purses is not the same as holding on to cachous wrapped in tissue paper. A beer or purse or some other object is taking the brunt of the fall and isn't going to fall apart.

I'm sorry you don't buy the cachous argument because I think it is an extremely important piece of evidence but I can only lead the horse to water.

c.d.

Hi CD
I meant beer in a cup! Haha.

To be quite honest with you CD, and I admitted this as much before, but I do Beleive that it would be possible, maybe even probable, that stride would have dropped the caschous if thrown to the ground. However, not to the point where I could even think twice about ruling out BS man as her killer. No way-it's ludicrous. For one, there could be any number of scenarios where she was not even holding them when Schwartz witnessed the BS man attack.

[Errata]

I just tried the bed experiment. The results were the same as when I did it before. I landed on my hands with palms outstretched. I then tried to fall without extending my hands. I could do it but it seemed very unnatural and I had to make a conscious effort not to extend my hands.

Those were my results. Your mileage may vary.

c.d.

And you always will.

A million things determine what happens during a fall. Not the least of which is whether you fell or were pushed. Every part of you is trying to keep you upright, and terrible injuries occur even when a person doesn't actually hit the ground.

In high school I learn that when a person is pushed, they are equally likely to reach forward to grab the person in front of them to stop the fall as they are to put their hands back to break their fall. But unless a person is pushed, or experiences some impact that causes the fall, they never do it. Never. I had a very odd drama teacher.

Every time you fall you will put your hands down. Until you don't. And you have not done it before, you just don't especially remember it, because why would you? Other things come in to play, especially if your face is not in imminent danger. Goalies do it every day, because they hold on to the ball. And they aren't telling themselves "don't put your hands down, don't put your hands down". They don't do it quite naturally. Put anyone in a goal and they will do the same thing. People who slip on ice trying to open their car door go down, but hold on to the car door. That's common. People holding something, even something unimportant will often not put their hands down to save what they are holding. People falling at some rate of speed actually unconsciously position their bodies to try and land on their side, with impact along their thigh. The femur is the strongest bone and it's the best way to displace force, and they will usually keep their hands and elbows tucked in to their chests. People who fall because they were punched in the face almost never put their hands down. They've grabbed their recently punched face.

My father's new girlfriend ( ) is a Sports Medicine phD, so she rattled these off to me. The sport most likely to cause Colles' fracture (the classic wrist fracture from falling) is gymnastics, followed by ice skating. It is rarely seen in football, basketball, soccer, rugby, or hockey. There is a lot of falling in those sports, just apparently the wrong kind. They do have other kinds of wrist fractures.

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.

I mean ever our most basic biological imperatives hiccup now and again. Of course your lungs don't need an influx of soda, but somehow you can still manage to swallow wrong. How hard is it to swallow? Some people (not looking at the man to my right) can manage to inhale their own spit and choke. I blink only half as often as I should because I don't particularly produce tears (another biological failure) which my eye doctor find benign but fascinating. And one tragic evening during a bachelorette party I manage to vomit Nerds out of my nose. And I know god didn't intend for that to happen or it wouldn't have hurt so bad. I've never met somebody who has peed wrong, but I know they're out there.

We aren't wired that well, sad to say. We can manage to consciously overcome every biological imperative, including that of remaining alive. And when we aren't paying attention we can still screw up about 3/4 of them. Even if putting your hands down when you fall was wired on par with breathing and blinking, she still had a chance of botching it.

[John G]

I think the example of sports professionals is a little misleading, because the nature of the sport means that you effectively train yourself to respond in a certain way. For example, rugby players and American footballers no doubt fight to hold on to the ball at all costs, effectively tucking it in to the body prior to impact.

I wonder, however, what might happen if Stride fell sideways, rather than, say, forwards or backwards. Might she in those circumstances instinctively tuck her arm into her body like a sling, with the first closed, so that her shoulder takes the impact?

However, the lack of injuries bothers me. Whether thrown or pushed to the ground, it seems extraordinary that there are no cuts, bruises or abrasions of any kind.

Another problem is that Schwartz states that BS man tried to pull Stride into the street. That means he failed, so Stride had to resist. I think it would therefore be likely that Stride would have instinctively used both arms, and hands , as she resisted.

[lynn cates]

no-brainer

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

[lynn cates]

walking

Hello Jon.

"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."

Ah! So you play bingo too! (heh-heh)

No doubt, these are the sorts of things that first cast doubt on the Schwartz story at Leman.

Once had an old professor who said, "Some can see the problem; some can't. If one can't--walk away."

Good advice.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

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

You mean this?

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!

Your argument is exactly the same as those.

It like saying wherever someone is found murdered in a public place, then whatever local public building is nearby, whatever group is there is responsible.

[lynn cates]

third hand theme

Hello Batman.

"No the bruising doesn't indicate contact with the ground, it indicates a frontal assault."

Try using your head for just a moment. What kind of frontal assault would leave these marks?

1. Surely not just a shove?

2. If both shoulders are so marked, surely the assailant must have used both hands?

3. If both hands were used, the knife was NOT in one of them at the time?

Sheesh!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no luck

Hello Abby.

"So it's feasible that she could hold on to them through being choked with her scarf, her throat being cut and going to the ground, dying . . ."

Yes, as I clearly demonstrated in my re-enactment. The pull of the scarf causes the hand to clench. That includes the fingers. And, yes, the cachous were retained as is clearly evident."

". . . but not feasible for her to hold onto them through such a minor tussle (according to many)???"

Minor tussle? IF she were thrown to the ground, that might not be minor.

But why not recreate it and find out?

Luck? No, reasoning skill will do.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ridley Scott

Hello John.

"when she saw BS man return, wouldn't she immediately let out a scream"

Of course. But not a loud one. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

#6

Hello DJA. Interesting post. But I thought the Jewish soup kitchen was not quite at #6?

Believe there is an old thread on this?

Cheers.
LC