For what reason do we include Stride?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

Just carrying on from the above as my time to edit has expired.

I was just examining the photographs of Kate in the mortuary (found here, post #9: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...wes-photograph). Trying to track down the diagram, but haven't found a link.

In all photos, I can only see one cut to the throat, as is the case in the diagram as I recall, so I'm pretty sure, despite the ambiguity of the testimony, that Kate only had one cut to her throat, and the statement about superficial is in reference to the start of that singular injury. Nichols and Chapman had two cuts to the throat, but I think they may have been failed attempts at decapitation, which JtR was unable to do, and gave up on that, which is why we don't see the 2nd to the spine encircling cut on Eddowes, or Stride (if she's included, but for Stride other explanations exist as well).

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Jeff, Dr Brown wrote: "A superficial cut commenced....", not "a cut commenced superficially....."

These are quite different statements.

[Wickerman]

Seems more likely to me that Liz was entertaining someone within the yard. She was about to freshen up with her cachous when the person suddenly pulled her by the scarf and slashed her throat. Her body went rigid in shock, leaving her still clutching the cachous in her hand. Do we seriously think this man was the same thug manhandling her moments earlier?

I'm glad someone else see's this as a viable alternative.
What happened to the man seen by PC Smith?

I know that Packer's statements are not worthy due to his times being all over the place. However, just paying attention to the sequence of events that he told investigators.....
A man accompanied Stride that night, ...they stand by his shop, ...they cross the road to stand opposite the club by the Board School (this could be corroborated by PC Smith), ...and stand a while, ...then cross back over to the club.....

This to my mind is the only reason Stride would be inside the gateway, she was with someone - likely the man seen by Packer, which is the same man as seen by PC Smith with the parcel (had he just bought something from Packer?)

BS-man staggered passed and saw the couple in the gateway, he accosted Stride for what she was - maybe even swore at her, "we don't want your type around here" or words to that effect.
Schwartz walks passed and only see's BS-man accost Stride, not noticing the Smith suspect in the shadows.
Both men (BS-man & Schwartz) leave, only then does the Smith suspect slice Stride's throat.

[Observer]

I'm glad someone else see's this as a viable alternative.
What happened to the man seen by PC Smith?

I know that Packer's statements are not worthy due to his times being all over the place. However, just paying attention to the sequence of events that he told investigators.....
A man accompanied Stride that night, ...they stand by his shop, ...they cross the road to stand opposite the club by the Board School (this could be corroborated by PC Smith), ...and stand a while, ...then cross back over to the club.....

This to my mind is the only reason Stride would be inside the gateway, she was with someone - likely the man seen by Packer, which is the same man as seen by PC Smith with the parcel (had he just bought something from Packer?)

BS-man staggered passed and saw the couple in the gateway, he accosted Stride for what she was - maybe even swore at her, "we don't want your type around here" or words to that effect.
Schwartz walks passed and only see's BS-man accost Stride, not noticing the Smith suspect in the shadows.
Both men (BS-man & Schwartz) leave, only then does the Smith suspect slice Stride's throat.

So why wasn't she mutilated then?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

In all photos, I can only see one cut to the throat, as is the case in the diagram as I recall, so I'm pretty sure, despite the ambiguity of the testimony, that Kate only had one cut to her throat, and the statement about superficial is in reference to the start of that singular injury. Nichols and Chapman had two cuts to the throat, but I think they may have been failed attempts at decapitation, which JtR was unable to do, and gave up on that, which is why we don't see the 2nd to the spine encircling cut on Eddowes, or Stride (if she's included, but for Stride other explanations exist as well).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

The only prints I have seen of the open wound are too dark and out of focus to determine how many cuts. This detail was looked at a couple of decades ago when the subject first came up.

Not that this can be taken as 'proof', but the sketch by Foster can hardly be excused by saying it is a mistake, he was standing over the body.




The clearest photo's are after the autopsy and show one long line of stitches around the throat which is to be expected.
To demonstrate this I would ask you to visualize a pig on a butchers block.
Run a knife across the skin, as the skin is sliced it will pull back exposing the flesh beneath. The knife is then stabbed into the open wound and pulled across severing all the deep tissues.
After the autopsy only the outer skin is stitched up, which can give the erroneous impression that there was only one cut, when in fact the second deep cut just happens to lay inside the first open wound.

The question has always been, "why two cuts?"
I think there is a need the killer did this and it has to do with the theory proposed by Dr Brownfield in his examination of Rose Mylett.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, Dr Brown wrote: "A superficial cut commenced....", not "a cut commenced superficially....."

These are quite different statements.

Yes, but all images, photographs and the diagram show only one cut. Testimony is spoken language, which is looser than a written report. and so the meaning has to be considered in that light. A written postmortem report would be much more useful to us, but we don't have one unfortunately. Also, the testimony presentation often omitted when questions were asked, either from the coroner or from a jury member (some papers include these details, others do not; without them, the testimony often seems quite chaotic and/or clipped, in the cases where it is clear a question is being addressed, the flow of the "conversation" starts to make a bit more sense).

The way I see it is that Brown's spoken statement, as recorded by the press, could just as easily arise from him describing the 6-7 inch wound as a superficial cut that commenced... went deeper and cut the left ... and became shallower on the right side ... etc. (paraphrasing possible "intended meaning" there, not quoting). I believe that because, in part, of the order of his statements. He starts by describing a 6-7 inch cut, and what follows does not clearly indicate he's now describing a 2nd injury (he doesn't preface the superficial statement with "A second superficial cut..."). Yes, it could be a 2nd injury (given how spoken language is not always as clear as intended), which is where the ambiguity of his statement comes in. So either it's a second cut, or it it could be describing details of the 6-7 inch cut (so one injury). The very next statement, though, clearly isn't about a superficial injury, so much relate back to the first described cut (the 6-7 inch one). That order and unclear back and forth feels unnatural to me when viewed as describing two cuts, but it makes more "natural sense" to me if there's only one, and the wording is a bit non-optimal (an error either in his speech, or in the ways his speech was written down).

Given the photographic evidence, and the diagram, both showing only one injury, I think that puts the weight of the evidence on the ambiguity of his spoken statement on the singular cut interpretation. I fully agree that if all we had was the spoken testimony, it is entirely unclear. However, all of the pieces should fit, and either we end up siding with the two cut interpretation of an ambiguous spoken presentation, and then argue for 1) the photos are not clear enough to see the second injury and 2) the diagram omitted it, both of which start to fell like "add on reasoning" (meaning, they are arguments put forth only to support the conclusion initially drawn in light of disconfirming evidence; note, please don't take that as an attack or accusation aimed towards you, I'm only mentioning that as a general principal of how I engage in theory evaluation and to explain why I have come to the conclusion that I have - I find myself having to do that in order to keep the two cut interpretation "in play" so to speak, which tells me I'm on the wrong track).

Anyway, clearly we all have to go through our own evaluations of the evidence, and we all do that differently and hence, come to different opinions. That's the good thing about these boards, is that we can see things from views we may have overlooked due to how each of us view the limited data we have to constrain us.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

So why wasn't she mutilated then?

He didn't have time. I can't think of a good argument against an interruption. Opinions may differ on what that interruption was.

[c.d.]

We have every reason to doubt Schwartz.

There is no evidence that Liz was dragged or forced into the yard. No defensive wounds, no abrasions, clothes undisturbed. Didn't drop a single cachou the entire time. No one else could corroborate Schwartz's narrative. No one else heard the altercation between the two. You believe that after her tussle with BS Man, Liz went willingly into the shadows with her guard down? Now that's insanity!

Hello Harry,

You seem to be conflating Schwartz's story with details of her death. He only saw her being pushed. He does not describe her murder.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"I do. absolutely. the chances she was assaulted by one man only to be murdered by another man moments later is practally nil. ask any cop-its unheard of."

Hello Abby,

It was minutes later not moments. And if the cop you asked was Swanson, he would say another man was quite possible as he indicated in his report.

c.d.

[Observer]

He didn't have time. I can't think of a good argument against an interruption. Opinions may differ on what that interruption was.

The Schwartz, PC Smith sighting happened some 15 minutes before Deimshutz entered the yard, so yes he had ample time to mutilate

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman,

Ah, there's the diagram, thanks for that. Hmmmm, might be best to ignore my above, as I see what you're getting at now. There does appear to be a 2nd cut below the major one (running slightly upwards from right to left of the image).

I'm happy to see that as a correction as I only recalled the one (and couldn't find a copy of the diagram).

So, his presentation does appear to jump back and forth, which I find an odd sequence of presentation, but again, spoken language is odd like that at times.

Anyway, given the diagram is not as I recalled it (memory is a horribly error prone thing), and does show a 2nd injury, then I'm happy to correct what was only an opinion from above in light of the more objective evidence. And no, I don't think arguing that it's a mistake is viable, given his job was to record the injuries. That's why above, where I erroneously thought the diagram only showed one injury, I was not comfortable in presuming he "left one out". That same discomfort prevents me from considering the idea that he "put one in", therefore, the error is mine.

Cheers for that.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

"I guess, for me, getting rid of BS doesn't seem to actually solve the cachous, if they're even a problem requiring solving, and the location is entirely consistent with where BS was reported to have been roughing her up."

Hello Jeff,

Getting rid of the BS man absolutely gets rid of the cachous problem as it explains how the cachous survived being pushed to the ground, getting up from the ground and trying to fend off the BS man as he was trying to drag her into the yard. The answer is that she didn't have them in her hand during the incident Schwartz describes but only took them out later after the BS man left and she had calmed down.

You say BS man was reported to have been "roughing her up." Are you equating that with the BS man simply pushing her to the ground as Schwartz describes?

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

...Also, why are you asssuming that if it WAS 3-5 separate killers that they would all be murders of strangers? One could imagine one man killing Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes, then Kidney killing Stride, and Barnett killing Kelly, for instance . And they don't get caught because the police, press, coroners and witnesses are all caught up in the Ripper Hysteria. Again, this is not my actual theory of what happened, I'm just making a point that the links between the canonical five are ALL at least a little bit up to questioning.

You're right, point taken.

[JeffHamm]

"I guess, for me, getting rid of BS doesn't seem to actually solve the cachous, if they're even a problem requiring solving, and the location is entirely consistent with where BS was reported to have been roughing her up."

Hello Jeff,

Getting rid of the BS man absolutely gets rid of the cachous problem as it explains how the cachous survived being pushed to the ground, getting up from the ground and trying to fend off the BS man as he was trying to drag her into the yard. The answer is that she didn't have them in her hand during the incident Schwartz describes but only took them out later after the BS man left and she had calmed down.

You say BS man was reported to have been "roughing her up." Are you equating that with the BS man simply pushing her to the ground as Schwartz describes?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I'm of a different opinion on that. We know Stride had two bruises under each collar bone from the medical reports, and these would suggest that the "pushing" involved strikes against her hard enough to leave those marks. BS actions account for those, but indicate this is more than just a pushing away of someone making an unwanted proposition. Also, if that is all BS was doing, the incident as described by Schwartz is more prolonged than called for if BS is simply getting rid of an unwanted advance.

Also, we don't know when Stride put the cachous in her hand to begin with. It seems to me, though, if she's holding them when BS starts his manhandling of her, she would grasp them. And as he appears willing to continue doing so once Schwartz and Pipeman are spotted, I see no reason to conclude he isn't willing to continue to do after they leave. Yes, I can see why that might not be the most rational decision, but neither is killing her (by BS or anyone else).

BS either then forces her into the alley, or she gets away and escapes into it, still holding the cachous, which there has been no opportunity to re-pocket. If she flees, he grabs her scarf, tightening it, and perhaps causing her to fall but she doesn't drop them. He then cuts her throat, an escalation she was not expecting (given the pushing and shoving, while violent enough to bruise her, has been argued to be not apparently murderous in intensity).

And if it's JtR, the attack went poorly as compared to his previous, there's too much activity in the streets (Schwartz, Pipeman), there's the sound of people in the club (unlike Hanbury Street, where all were still sleeping), so he leaves. Shortly thereafter, Deimshutz shows up.

Something like the above accounts for why she's holding them. Otherwise, BS leaves, another person comes along, she's comfortable enough after having been pushed around and thrown to the ground in this location to entertain this newcommer, who then must get her to the ground by some violent means by which again she does not drop the cachous. The same problem again exists. I don't see how, or why, replacing BS with someone else who assaults her while she's holding the cachous makes any real difference, particularly as this newcommer is supposed to assault her even more violently than BS.

Obviously, we see that differently, but that's the nature of having little evidence, we have to speculate on how events unfolded, and those speculations will either seem plausible or not to different people. I find the above to be plausible (not saying it's correct, just saying it's plausible), but that's an opinion, and those vary from person to person.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

You're right, point taken.

Yes, but here is the problem with that theory. The police didn't know who the Ripper was. They never were able to assign a name to his identity. In other words, the police never said well Kidney or Barnett couldn't have killed those women because it was Joe Smith the Ripper. How did they know that Kidney or Barnett were not the Ripper?

c.d.