The Cachous

[Batman]

Again the assumption there must be physical damage from dragging a few feet isn't supported by the primary material in pathology. However her handkerchief was tight around her neck. Why? I don't accept Lynn's proposition that someone with arm around her shoulder did it by pulling it down to the left. That' just an abrupt quick tug. Dragging something a few feet with it does tighten it using the persons own weight.

[John G]

The fact is if Stride were thrown to the ground, let alone dragged several feet, you would surely expect bruising or grazing of some kind. However, there were no bruises found on the body. In fact there were no abrasions of any kind. Moreover, there wasn't even any damage to the clothing.

Schwartz also states that Stride was standing in the gateway. That surely implies that she was waiting for someone. Now assuming that JtR's MO didn't involve asking victims to wait for him near busy clubs, I would conclude that she was waiting for someone she knew. And that person has to be a prime suspect if Scwartx's evidence is to be accepted.

[Batman]

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

Obviously you are completely oblivious to JtRs MO of rendering the victim semi unconscious through manual strangulation which involved both hands before the knife comes out. Like your demonstration though you have the knife out before she is even toppling over.

That's a big no no.

[Batman]

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."

Cheers.
LC

Actually you can't see any of that all because your filming it from the back opposite side to where that alledged action takes place. So its just your memory.

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

[Batman]

Declaring something doesn't make it so and adding ad hominems shows there is no argument against it.

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.

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).

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.

[lynn cates]

gibberish

Hello Batman. Thanks.

No, the argument is NOT the same. Although, when it comes to an argument and its proper conduct, you show you haven't a clue.

And I won't ask you to explain. By now, I can see that it is futile.

Might find someone to translate gibberish into English.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

empirical

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

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Poirot lives!

Hello CD. Excellent post!

I see you have been agitating ze little grey cells, n'est-ce pas?

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

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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