The Cachous

[lynn cates]

round

Hello Gwyneth.

"If she was standing in the gateway when he "turned her round", I see no problem with her being found three yards in (approx)."

OK. Try this. If BSM meets Liz, it is likely he is facing west, she east, at the confrontation. IF he turns her round--after pulling her--she would naturally be on the other side of him--eastward--FURTHER from the yard.

But, one could interpret this as causing her to rotate 180 degrees. In that case she would be facing west. And if she now hit the ground, she would be on her belly.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John,

Schwarz says "he saw a man stop and speak to a woman who was standing in the gateway" "the man tried to pull her into the street" "turned her around and threw her down on the footway". Sourcebook, Evans and Skinner.

If she was standing in the gateway when he "turned her round", I see no problem with her being found three yards in (approx). The footway could just as easily be the passage in the yard. It is quite possible that she was just inside the gates, which must have been open to let Diemschutz in, he didn't get down to open them.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

But there was a footway outside the gates, although it broke off either side of the gate. Therefore, from that perspective Schwarz's evidence makes sense. I don't see how anyone would regard passage in the Yard as corresponding to a public footpath: footpaths are walkways for pedestrians, that are invariably on either side of a road/street.

[curious4]

Hello Lynn,

Not if he was holding her by the shoulders and guiding how she fell. He grabs her, tries to pull her forward. No go, so he grabs her by the shoulders, turning her with her back to him and possibly taking a few steps further into the yard, forces her to the ground, Eagle says six or seven feet from the gate. Throttles and then positions her on her side to cut her throat.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

[lynn cates]

tall order

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"so he grabs her by the shoulders, turning her with her back to him and possibly taking a few steps further into the yard"

This is like my second proposal.

1. While this is happening, she held onto the cachous.

2. She is pushed into the yard.

3. She must be throttled, but without ANY signs of it.

4. She ends up with significant mud on left side only.

A tall order.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

For the Cashoo Crowd:

Please explain if its so apparent that stride being found with caschous in her hand excludes BS man from being her killer, then why did none of the police at the time think so?

Also, many very knowledgable experts in ripperology put forth a convincing argument that it was Schwartz that was actually the witness in the Kosminski ID. If this is the case then obviously the police valued his story and took him for a credible witness, and very well beleived that BS man WAS Strides killer, no?

[John G]

Hello Abby,

Well, as I pointed out on the other thread, I'm sure Kosminski enjoyed a nice holiday by the seaside but I'm uncertain as to who else benefited from the charade! The fact is, the identification, which took place in improper circumstances, was of no evidential value whatsoever. And we cannot be certain who the witness was; it's just as likely to be Lawende, if not more so. And they refused to testify, which suggests to me that they were far from certain about the ID. In fact, I suspect that the witness was lead to believe that the police had far more additional, and substantive, evidence against the suspect than was the case. As soon as they realized this, they quickly backtracked. And isn't it also interesting that Grainger was also supposedly identified as the killer. I mean, as he was known to have seriously wounded Alice Graham, what makes him a less likely candidate?

The only other substantial evidence against Kosminski, if that's who it was, seems to be that his family suspected him. Well, funily enough so did Druitt's. Can you detect a bit of a theme developing here?

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Well, as I pointed out on the other thread, I'm sure Kosminski enjoyed a nice holiday by the seaside but I'm uncertain as to who else benefited from the charade! The fact is, the identification, which took place in improper circumstances, was of no evidential value whatsoever. And we cannot be certain who the witness was; it's just as likely to be Lawende, if not more so. And they refused to testify, which suggests to me that they were far from certain about the ID. In fact, I suspect that the witness was lead to believe that the police had far more additional, and substantive, evidence against the suspect than was the case. As soon as they realized this, they quickly backtracked. And isn't it also interesting that Grainger was also supposedly identified as the killer. I mean, as he was known to have seriously wounded Alice Graham, what makes him a less likely candidate?

The only other substantial evidence against Kosminski, if that's who it was, seems to be that his family suspected him. Well, funily enough so did Druitt's. Can you detect a bit of a theme developing here?

Hi JohnG
I didn't really want to get into the details of the kosminski ID, I was merely pointing out that if it was Schwartz as the witness then obviously the police believed him and believed BS could have been Strides killer.

I noticed you skipped the main point of my post-i'll ask again. Why didn't the police at the time rule out BS man due to the Caschous? Nor even mention it as a problem? I mean according to you all its so bloody obvious!

I'll answer it for you-Because no detective worth his salt-now or then-would rule out a suspect or throw out eye witness testimony(!!) based on the fact that the victim was found holding something in there hand. Its ridiculous.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
I didn't really want to get into the details of the kosminski ID, I was merely pointing out that if it was Schwartz as the witness then obviously the police believed him and believed BS could have been Strides killer.

I noticed you skipped the main point of my post-i'll ask again. Why didn't the police at the time rule out BS man due to the Caschous? Nor even mention it as a problem? I mean according to you all its so bloody obvious!

I'll answer it for you-Because no detective worth his salt-now or then-would rule out a suspect or throw out eye witness testimony(!!) based on the fact that the victim was found holding something in there hand. Its ridiculous.

Hi Abby,

Yes, I basically agree. In fact, the issue of the cachous wasn't discussed in detail at the inquest, so I would doubt that the police had even considered the problem. And I accept that if the police had substantial evidence against a suspect, such as an identification which took place in proper circumstances, from a witness who was prepared to testify, I'm sure the cachous problem, and the numerous other difficulties with Schwartz's testimony, would not have prevented the suspect from being charged. Although, of course, these issues may have been raised in his defence. After all, Saddler was charged with murder, despite the fact that numerous witnesses could place him somewhere else at the time, where he was incapably drunk!

However, none of that actually happened. Neither BS man, Kosminski or anyone else was ever charged with any of the Whitechapel murders. The best we have is a suspect, who may or may not have been Kosminksi, being identified in improper circumstances, by a witness, who may or may not have been Schwartz, who refused to testify anyway. Nonetheless, I'm sure he had a very nice day out at the seaside. I wonder if they let him have a go on the bouncy castle!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Yes, I basically agree. In fact, the issue of the cachous wasn't discussed in detail at the inquest, so I would doubt that the police had even considered the problem. And I accept that if the police had substantial evidence against a suspect, such as an identification which took place in proper circumstances, from a witness who was prepared to testify, I'm sure the cachous problem, and the numerous other difficulties with Schwartz's testimony, would not have prevented the suspect from being charged. Although, of course, these issues may have been raised in his defence.

However, none of that actually happened. Neither BS man, Kosminski or anyone else was ever charged with any of the Whitechapel murders. The best we have is a suspect, who may or may not have been Kosminksi, being identified in improper circumstances, by a witness, who may or may not have been Schwartz, who refused to testify anyway. Nonetheless, I'm sure he had a very nice day out at the seaside. I wonder if they let him have a go on the bouncy castle!

Hi JohnG
Thanks-I appreciate your response!

To be quite frank, while we are all being so open minded, I must admit in the past I never even considered the caschous as any kind of issue. Because of this thread, and good and valid points brought up by the other side I have to say now I do see how they COULD be a problem. Ive upgraded them to yellow flag status! seriously. My mind has been swayed abit. (just a bit).

Yes re the suspects-they are all weak, some are just less weak than others. I have about half dozen who I think are valid suspects, but keep an open mind about most.

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Thanks-I appreciate your response!

To be quite frank, while we are all being so open minded, I must admit in the past I never even considered the caschous as any kind of issue. Because of this thread, and good and valid points brought up by the other side I have to say now I do see how they COULD be a problem. Ive upgraded them to yellow flag status! seriously. My mind has been swayed abit. (just a bit).

Yes re the suspects-they are all weak, some are just less weak than others. I have about half dozen who I think are valid suspects, but keep an open mind about most.

Hi Abby,

I think whatever happened has to be fairly implausible, and Stride holding onto to cachous is probably far from being the least plausible solution! I agree about the need to be open minded-reading Dr Biggs' analysis has lead me to conclude that hardly any of the opinions expressed by the Victorian GPs can be relied upon. In fact, it seems that even modern forensic science is unable to come up with much in the way of definitive conclusions. It's a pity that Trevor didn't ask him for an opinion about the cachous!

I agree that the suspect list is pretty weak. As you know, one of my favourite candidates is Thompson: may have lived near one of the victims, had medical training, carried a scalpel, only serious relationship was with a prostitute, mutilated dolls (or a doll) and started fires. However, the only evidence that he expressed violence towards women is in his poetry. On that basis maybe Robert Browning should be elevated to major suspect status! To say nothing of William Sickert, who painted "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom"!

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

And yet the killer did get his hand in and throttle her with it. From the medical evidence. A neckerchief was somewhat larger than a man`s hanky of (fairly) recent memory.Before tissues, that is.

Best wishes,
C4

I confess I may be missing something, but what makes you so sure she was throttled? There's no bruising, no rope burn, no signs of strangulation, no injuries to her throat indicating an attempt to loosen to hold... I'm looking at the medical evidence and I'm not seeing it.

Not that it wouldn't make perfect sense that the scarf might have cut off her air flow for a second or two, but I don't see anything to make me think that there was any serious injury even attempted in that way.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. You make several good points. I like a model that includes a shakedown.

I think my biggest difficulty is finding her assailant deeper in the yard (to the west) and behind her.

Any likely scenario?

Cheers.
LC

There is nothing likely. I mean, the whole murder is just a problem, logic wise.

It is a possibility that after being tossed to the ground (if we are going with Schwartz's account) Stride's assailant managed to convince her that the immediate threat was over, which can happen pretty quickly. A 'I'm sorry, let's talk about this reasonably" sort of approach. He helps her up, because they were interrupted he says "let's take this somewhere more private" and they duck into the yard. She lets her guard down, pulls out a cachous, she says something he didn't like, he kills her.

Vague I know. But it eliminates some weird guy hanging out in a yard for no reason. Which makes things easier. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time coming up with something she could know or have worth dying for. Or what offense she could have committed worth killing for. It's why I have to default to something involving gangs. Which makes me cringe to even type it. But in that day and age, the only person who is going to kill Liz Stride aside from a jealous ex or a serial killer is a gang member. She might get hit by a trolley, but she is not really in a position to be murdered for a lot of reasons. And there's always a reason.

What strikes me is that even today in the world of petty crime and gangs, the two things that get you murdered are either betrayal or as an example. There is nothing to suggest she had contact with gangs to the point she could betray one, though she had run a pretty nice con. And she could have been killed as a lesson to others, but the method used was similar enough to the Ripper killings that it would not be unforeseen that her murder would get folded into that. So unless they killed her to send a message to Michael Kidney, that message was wasted. And they should have known that. But mistakes happen, so I don't know. But on the other hand I don't know what the example is supposed to be, thought I suppose they can't all be Mexican Narco murders where notes are conveniently pinned on the victim's chest. Or maybe she had already used up her last warning, and she was always going to die that night, or the next, or the next, whenever they caught up with her. Maybe she stole something.

But if not that, there are other options.

In modern society if you dress well and carry a clipboard you can go just about anywhere. You can go into a strangers basement if you have a good spiel to go with the clipboard. It's the master key of modern society. Back then it was a bucket. A guy with a bucket can go anywhere, get past anything. Because the bucket tells you two things. The guy has a reason to go where he's going, and that reason is not interesting. So a guy with a bucket watches the fight, after Schwartz runs off he walks up to the gate, says "excuse me" and goes in and waits. If he knows she cleans the place occasionally, he can be reasonably sure she'll go into the yard or pass the gate again at some point. Even watching the fight he knows there's a good chance she will retreat to the yard. It's a good place to wait, even if he's only going to watch her or follow her. When she goes back there, it's a guy with a bucket, so not interesting and potentially gross. So she's not worried about him. She would probably ignore him. She's not planning on staying in the yard that long.

There's ways it works, but none of them are good ways. Most of them involve some dicey maneuvering. Creating decision points where she could go a different way, or make a different choice, and then it doesn't happen.

The only sure way to make sure it happens in a particular way is that her attackers physically pick her up and carry her into the yard where they kill her. And it would explain why there's no mud, no injuries. It might even explain why she held on to the cachous, because someone has a hold of her hands. It might even explain the blood evidence. I just have no idea why they would do that. Dragging should have been fine, except it didn't happen. And nothing prevents her from screaming unless some very weird juggling is going on.

It's a problem.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think whatever happened has to be fairly implausible, and Stride holding onto to cachous is probably far from being the least plausible solution! I agree about the need to be open minded-reading Dr Biggs' analysis has lead me to conclude that hardly any of the opinions expressed by the Victorian GPs can be relied upon. In fact, it seems that even modern forensic science is unable to come up with much in the way of definitive conclusions. It's a pity that Trevor didn't ask him for an opinion about the cachous!

I agree that the suspect list is pretty weak. As you know, one of my favourite candidates is Thompson: may have lived near one of the victims, had medical training, carried a scalpel, only serious relationship was with a prostitute, mutilated dolls (or a doll) and started fires. However, the only evidence that he expressed violence towards women is in his poetry. On that basis maybe Robert Browning should be elevated to major suspect status! To say nothing of William Sickert, who painted "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom"!

Hi JohnG
Re FT-Im HIGHLY skeptical of many modern suspects, especially ones who have no apparent ties to the case and who weren't considered by the police or are even mentioned peripherally having to do with the case (ie. like witnesess etc.). But I keep an open mind.

I will say hes an interesting character and deserves further research. But hey, apparently Tolkien liked his writing so hes got that going for him! ; )

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Re FT-Im HIGHLY skeptical of many modern suspects, especially ones who have no apparent ties to the case and who weren't considered by the police or are even mentioned peripherally having to do with the case (ie. like witnesess etc.). But I keep an open mind.

I will say hes an interesting character and deserves further research. But hey, apparently Tolkien liked his writing so hes got that going for him! ; )

Hi Abby,

Of course Thompson was also an opium addict, so that could be something else in favour of his candidacy, I.e his addiction may have affected the balance of his mind. However, I certainly wouldn't rule out Kosminski- although I've been a bit negative on the other thread Jeff does mention, I believe, that he lived near Berner Street and the police certainly regarded him as a major suspect.

Okay, here's a BS man scenario. Let us assume that BS man was also Marshall's suspect. He's been trying to persuade Stride to come with him to a pre-planned location for some time but she refuses. Perhaps he looses patience, they have an argument and Stride walks away, stopping by the gates of the club- after all, if she felt threatened she could have been attracted by the music and singing and, to that extent, the public nature of the club would represent a possible place of refuge.

However, BS man's not giving up. He approaches Stride and makes a final attempt to persuade her to come with him. When she refuses, he looses his temper and tries to pull her into the street, I.e by way of encouragement. Stride pulls back, causing her to loose her balance, spin round and fall to the ground.

After seeing off Schwartz and Pipeman, BS man profusely apologizes, and offers Stride the cachous- or she takes the cachous out herself, to help her relax and regain her composure.

She accepts the cachous from BS man. Why? Firstly, she's wary of further offending him. Secondly, she doesn't really regard him as a serious threat, more a bit of an over-persistent pest. After all, we know from Marshall's account that he could be charming, and if he really meant to harm her why hasn't he done so before now? And such a well-dressed, mildly-spoken, educated- sounding man seems about as far removed from JtR as she can imagine. He also bought her a flower earlier in the evening so he can't be all bad! She also accepts that the incident witnessed by Schwartz was an accident.

By way of further apology, he suggests that they go to the club, perhaps intimating that he's a member. Stride's amenable to this: the man really does seem apologetic and it appears he's genuinely trying to make amends; anyway, she's attracted to the sounds of revelry, I.e the music and singing. Moreover, the club's a public place so if BS man starts to become unpleasant again she can seek assistance.

They walk into the Yard to gain access via the side door; this might be another opportunity for Stride to take out the cachous, I.e to freshen her breath prior to entering the club. However, this is just a ruse on BS man's part. He realizes that he has to modify his plans; Stride is unlikely to go with him to the pre-planned location and, although not an ideal place to commit murder, at least Dutfield's Yard is cloaked in darkness.

However, as they enter the Yard Stride suddenly becomes wary. She realizes that there's something about the man she just doesn't trust, which is partly why she refused to go with him earlier. In the pitch-black darkness of the Yard she senses him breathing down her neck, as he closes the distance, knife drawn, prepared to strike.

However, at that moment a wary Stride suddenly changes her mind. She turns around and quickly walks off at an angle towards the gate. Tense, she grips the cachous tightly.

BS man is initially caught off guard and slow to react; and in the pitch black darkness it's not immediately apparent that Stride is heading for the exit. However, he quickly regains control of the situation. He turns around and rapidly closes the distance between himself and his victim. He catches her from behind, quickly bringing her to the ground, where he slits her throat.

What do you think?

[c.d.]

For the Cashoo Crowd:

Please explain if its so apparent that stride being found with caschous in her hand excludes BS man from being her killer, then why did none of the police at the time think so?

Also, many very knowledgable experts in ripperology put forth a convincing argument that it was Schwartz that was actually the witness in the Kosminski ID. If this is the case then obviously the police valued his story and took him for a credible witness, and very well beleived that BS man WAS Strides killer, no?

Hello Abby,

We have no record of how the police investigated the Stride killing so there is no way to determine if they took the cachous into consideration.

If you are touting the expertise of the police at the time we know that they did not catch Stride's killer nor did they catch anyone associated with the Whitechapel murders. They simply might have failed to see the significance of the cachous.

We don't know for certain that Schwartz was the witness in the Seaside Home identification. We do know however that Swanson mentioned the possibility of another killer besides the B.S. man in his report.

c.d.