The Cachous

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello MacGuffin.

"we noticed she was clutching a freshly soiled kleenex in her right hand.
The final assessment was that she had sneezed, and while doing so, had drifted into the on-coming lane directly in front of the approaching semi-trailer."

Well reconstructed forensics.

Of course, on this thread, some lad is BOUND to think she was offering it to the trucker to blow HIS nose. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello John.

"I think it would be far easier to bring someone to the ground by pulling the scarf from behind, rather than the side. Moreover, Dutfield's Yard was very narrow, so I think an attack from the side would create difficulties in that location, for instance, a killer might risk getting tangled up with his intended victim."

Precisely. Just as my re-enactment showed.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hi JohnG
I have a friend who is a cop. When I asked him about this subject he brought up numerous examples of deceased who were found still clutching something in there hand. The one that stuck out the most is a woman was found murdered in parking garage. Her purse and one of her shoes were found about 40 feet from her body. She had been beaten, stabbed and raped. She was still clutching her car keys. Defensive stab wounds were found on Both hands and arms!!

They came to the conclusion that she was walking back to her car late at night, first attacked by her killer where her shoe and purse were found, dragged to where her body was found, stabbed and raped and left dead.

But of course it could not have been the man they caught through his DNA(and other evidence) because she was still clutching her car keys.

Now im through with this nonsense.

I have no problem with someone holding on to something when threatened with a knife- in fact making a fist would probably be the natural thing to do in those circumstances. Nor holding on to something during a sudden attack. Nor holding on to something whilst tense, I.e because you're in fear for your life. Nor holding on to something whilst unconscious. Nor holding on to something whilst being dead. But none of that is directly relevant to a failure to break a fall whilst being thrown to the ground. It's the natural thing to do. Nor, as I said, is there any evidence, I.e. injuries to suggest that Stride was thrown to the ground, or that she failed to break a fall.

[Abby Normal]

I think there is little doubt that Stride would have held on to the cachous following a sudden unexpected assault, I.e. from behind, or a car crash for that matter, but that is not what Schwartz describes, and it is a "red herring" to keep suggesting otherwise. According to Schwartz Stride was thrown to the ground after struggling with BS man as he tried to pull her towards the street. In such circumstances her natural instinct would be to throw out her arms to break the fall, thus dropping the cachous, or at least splitting the packet, which is exactly what c.d. did when falling from her bike.

Moreover, as she clearly successfully resisted his attempts to pull her into the street, despite his broad shoulders, I would suggest it highly likely she used both arms and hands to do so.

Hi JohnG
I have a friend who is a cop. When I asked him about this subject he brought up numerous examples of deceased who were found still clutching something in there hand. The one that stuck out the most is a woman was found murdered in parking garage. Her purse and one of her shoes were found about 40 feet from her body. She had been beaten, stabbed and raped. She was still clutching her car keys. Defensive stab wounds were found on Both hands and arms!!

They came to the conclusion that she was walking back to her car late at night, first attacked by her killer where her shoe and purse were found, dragged to where her body was found, stabbed and raped and left dead.

But of course it could not have been the man they caught through his DNA(and other evidence) because she was still clutching her car keys.

Now im through with this nonsense.

[John G]

Very appropriate call. The day to day work in this environment tells us what the doctors in 1888 even knew back then.

Great first hand account of the reality of what Errata described.

I think there is little doubt that Stride would have held on to the cachous following a sudden unexpected assault, I.e. from behind, or a car crash for that matter, but that is not what Schwartz describes, and it is a "red herring" to keep suggesting otherwise. According to Schwartz Stride was thrown to the ground after struggling with BS man as he tried to pull her towards the street. In such circumstances her natural instinct would be to throw out her arms to break the fall, thus dropping the cachous, or at least splitting the packet, which is exactly what c.d. did when falling from her bike. In fact, if she didn't break her fall she probably would have suffered significant injuries at this point, I.e. facial injuries or a broken arm, and where's the evidence for that? Where's the evidence Stride suffered any impact injuries as the result of a failure to break a fall, ie after being thrown to the ground?

Moreover, as she clearly successfully resisted his attempts to pull her into the street, despite his broad shoulders, I would suggest it highly likely she used both arms and hands to do so.

[Batman]

end of discussion.
lets drop the caschous red herring now can we? too much time has been wasted on it already.

Very appropriate call. The day to day work in this environment tells us what the doctors in 1888 even knew back then.

Great first hand account of the reality of what Errata described.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Trevor,

Back in my EMS days, we were called out to an accident scene similar to what your FP described. It involved a compact car and a semi-trailer in a head-on collision.
After cutting open the car to access the driver (deceased), we noticed she was clutching a freshly soiled kleenex in her right hand.
The final assessment was that she had sneezed, and while doing so, had drifted into the on-coming lane directly in front of the approaching semi-trailer. It was also believed from the expression on her face, that she had seen the semi-trailer bearing down on her either instantly before, or at the moment of impact.

I've seen several instances of victims holding on to items after various types of accidents or violent attacks, and even though I know that clutching and/or death grips like this can and do occur, I am always shocked intellectually upon witnessing such situations.

end of discussion.
lets drop the caschous red herring now can we? too much time has been wasted on it already.

[MacGuffin]

Hi Trevor,

In an attempt to try to resolve the issues surrounding the cachous and Stride being found still gripping them I posed several questions to my forensic pathologist.

The questions and his interesting replies are set out below

Q One of the victims who had her throat cut was found still clutching cachous "firmly" in her hand. Is there any plausible explanations of this, bearing in mind if she were standing when her throat was cut would they not fall out or would there be some form of spasm which would make her grip them tight, and hold onto them, and would this be different if she had her throat cut whilst laying on the ground?

A. One of the phenomena handed down through the generations in forensic folklore is so-called “cadaveric spasm”. This is supposed to be where the normal stiffening of a dead body after death doesn’t take several hours to develop, but occurs “instantaneously” at the point of death. Classically sited examples are things like soldiers being found on the battlefield “clutching” their weapons or bodies recovered from water with bits of grass, weed or straw clutched in the hand… hence the expression “a drowning man will clutch at a straw”.

I think most forensic pathologists these days don’t believe that such “instantaneous” rigor mortis really happens, although it is known that rigor can develop very quickly after death. So it is possible that someone can die holding onto something, and by the time they are found (even only a short time later) the fingers can feel quite stiff around the object being grasped. I doubt anyone would refer to it as “cadaveric spasm” these days, but you will see it recorded in the books.

For the case you mentioned, there would be no difference (i.e. between lying or standing) than can reliably be inferred from such a finding. All it means is that she was probably holding them at the time of death, and they were still there by the time she was found and rigor mortis had already started. This is not unusual… the modern equivalent would be a driver found inside a mangled car, still clutching a mobile phone tightly (with a half-typed text message on the screen).

I hope that clarifies the situation, even though I know it probably doesn’t help take you much further.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Back in my EMS days, we were called out to an accident scene similar to what your FP described. It involved a compact car and a semi-trailer in a head-on collision.
After cutting open the car to access the driver (deceased), we noticed she was clutching a freshly soiled kleenex in her right hand.
The final assessment was that she had sneezed, and while doing so, had drifted into the on-coming lane directly in front of the approaching semi-trailer. It was also believed from the expression on her face, that she had seen the semi-trailer bearing down on her either instantly before, or at the moment of impact.

I've seen several instances of victims holding on to items after various types of accidents or violent attacks, and even though I know that clutching and/or death grips like this can and do occur, I am always shocked intellectually upon witnessing such situations.

[John G]

Hi John




Did he ?
He did say something about pulling the scarf back, but that can be done from the side (which is where Dr Phillips thought the killer stood)



Well, Stride screamed and no-one other than Schwartz heard, and Kelly may have cried out?



Would they know they were about to be murdered ?

Hello Jon,

I think it would be far easier to bring someone to the ground by pulling the scarf from behind, rather than the side. Moreover, Dutfield's Yard was very narrow, so I think an attack from the side would create difficulties in that location, for instance, a killer might risk getting tangled up with his intended victim.

Stride did scream, and the reason nobody heard is one of the reasons I doubt Schwartz's account. In fact, as I noted, the assault described by Schwartz appears to me to be far more consistent with the clumsy, somewhat amateurish, attack on Tabram than the other C5.

Kelly may have been asleep when attacked. There is little evidence that she cried out. Cries of "Oh murder" were heard, but they were common in that location. Moreover, I find it odd that three people heard those cries, but no one apart from Schwartz heard Stride's three screams, even though there were people in the vicinity.

They may not have known they were about to be murdered, but if they feared an assault, or the killer had given an indication he was about to attack, they would surely have attempted to defend themselves or call for assistance. In fact, that's exactly what Stride did, according to Schwartz.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi John




Did he ?
He did say something about pulling the scarf back, but that can be done from the side (which is where Dr Phillips thought the killer stood)



Well, Stride screamed and no-one other than Schwartz heard, and Kelly may have cried out?



Would they know they were about to be murdered ?

Hi John
What has to be borne in mind is that much of what Victorian Doctors stated way back then is now regarded by modern day experts as nothing more than guess work.

i.e. times of death, right or left handed killer etc etc.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

money where the mouth is

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Oh, just show everyone and then there will be no need for your talking nonsense.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi John

Dr Blackwell suggested Stride had been attacked from behind. .

Did he ?
He did say something about pulling the scarf back, but that can be done from the side (which is where Dr Phillips thought the killer stood)

However, it just seems more likely to me. The fact is, there is a complete lack of evidence for the victims putting up any kind of struggle, or crying out for help; this suggests they were caught completely by surprise and therefore off-guard. .

Well, Stride screamed and no-one other than Schwartz heard, and Kelly may have cried out?

If the killer's strategy was to launch a direct assault, I think it would have be difficult for him not to give some sort of indication about his intentions, i.e. through body language. This would give the victim the opportunity to cry out and to put up some kind of defence, as seems to have happened in the case of Tabram.

Would they know they were about to be murdered ?

[Batman]

Frontal bruising aplenty on Stride in addition to her shoulders.

[John G]

Why a rear attack. Do you have evidence for this ?

And, why wouldn`t the victims cry out or defend themselves ?

Hello Jon,

I believe Donald Rumbellow speculated that Nichols had her throat cut from behind and, of course, Dr Blackwell suggested Stride had been attacked from behind. However, it just seems more likely to me. The fact is, there is a complete lack of evidence for the victims putting up any kind of struggle, or crying out for help; this suggests they were caught completely by surprise and therefore off-guard. If the killer's strategy was to launch a direct assault, I think it would have be difficult for him not to give some sort of indication about his intentions, i.e. through body language. This would give the victim the opportunity to cry out and to put up some kind of defence, as seems to have happened in the case of Tabram.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Draw any circumference. Mark a point outside of the circumference and call it the left side. Now pick a point anywhere on the circle. Can you spin the circle left OR right to end up with the point on the left side? If you can then you have falsified there is only one direction that causes the point/knot to end up on the left side rendering that argument redundant."

Once again, you have managed to miss the point. The knot being to the left in addition to its being tight. Just grabbing the scarf on the circumference would NOT leave it tight.

In my re-enactment, I grabbed a tail of the slip knot and pulled. This decreased radius AND shifted it left.

Why not try this and see?

Cheers.
LC

Doesn't matter the point still stands. You have no idea where the knot was or type of position it was in. Everything your pretending only a rear attack can do can also be explained by nearly any other action on this item. There is no single one way that you would like us believe.