Stride - no strangulation.small knife ?

[The Grave Maurice]

...did he kill prostitutes because they were prostitutes, or just because they were readily accessible and easily led into quiet places?"

It's the second part of your statement that strikes me as being more probable, Bailey. I suspect that he was looking for women who were alone and vulnerable: the fact that the women who met that description were likely to be prostitutes may well have been irrelevant to him. I believe that he chose his targets by availability, not by occupation, age, or looks.

[Fisherman]

Observer writes:

"But seriously Fisherman..."

Seriously? You first change the setting to something that suits your purposes by naming Schwartz a liar, then you keep going on about the cachous being used to improve her breath for kissing purposes - and then YOU ask ME to be serious...? Baffling stuff, quite baffling!

I WILL be serious, though.

To begin with, I will stick to the Schwartz evidence for the simple and very compelling reason that I believe it to be true.
And why do I believe it to be true? For a number of reasons. To begin with, the testimony contains some odd passages that I think would not have been there if they had not occurred in reality.

Number one is the fact that the man tried to drag her into the street. Why would a man, cooking up some story about a street brawl, use that? Why not just say that he attacked her and threw her to the ground? But no - he tried to drag her into the street first, for some reason.

The second one: She cried out, but not very loudly. Why not go the ordinary way if you are lying: he kicked her butt and she screamed at the top of her voice. But no - she kept her voice down, and did so to an extent where Schwartz thought it illogical.

Elements like these are what makes a genuine story stand out from a manufactured one, and I think that ought to be recognized in this case.
Moreover, there are at least two other factors pointing to the story being real.
The fact that he arrived at Leman Street with a guide to tell his story points to him going through some trouble to hit the history books. Since he was headed home when he stumbled upon the brawl, he will have heard about the murder only later, and made the connection then. So he either alerted an interpretor to follow him to the police to tell the story, or he told it to somebody who spoke his language, and who saw to it that he went to the police. And maybe that version is the more credible one, since he does not seem interested in going to the media or attending inquests and so on afterwards - and that does not rhyme with a man interested in the limelight of lying, does it? If you want to see the behaviour of a liar in circumstances like these, there is always Matthew Packer to turn to.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the version of the events that he gave to the police, he awarded himself what role in the drama? Thatīs right: the role of the coward. The role of a man who stands by as a woman is manhandled and thrown to the ground, and who subesequently flees the scene, surmising that Pipeman may - or may not! - have followed him. Contemplating the Victorian ideals, that was crap behaviour!
Is that the kind of role a liar chooses? No, it is most certainly not. If you cook something up where you give yourself the cowardsīrole, you at least come up wit a good reason for accepting that role, and Schwartz did not.
Significantly, as he later realized how he had acted at the scene, he polishes the story somewhat by changing Pipemans pipe for a knife in the Star version, and I think that is a very human thing to do when you understand that you have been caught with your pants down.

So to me, Schwartz was being very exact about what happened, and there is every reason to believe his testimony. In the hunt for the Ripper, though, it is of little use, since he only saw Strides killer if I am correct - not Jack.

And if that is not enough to give you a pause, I recommend spending some time and effort to look into the difference between smokersī cachous and the very common small, flowerscented tablets that were called "sweetmeats" and that have survived into our own times. Candy, Observer! If you take the trouble to look at the old threads you will eventually find an old such where there is a lengthy battle on the topic, with lots of material supporting what I say.

All the best, my serious friend!

Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Sam

...even if she wasn't, I don't think Jack was that fussy - my view is that he wouldn't have hesitated to attack any vulnerable woman, irrespective of "profession", if she allowed herself to be sweet-talked by him.

I agree, but I was thinking along the lines of Stride arranging a meeting with someone on the night of her murder, i.e. the man seen with Stride by Best, and Gardener. Marshal also describes this man, It's my opinion that Stride was with this man all night, despite the differences in description.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Observer writes:

"But seriously Fisherman..."

Seriously? You first change the setting to something that suits your purposes by naming Schwartz a liar, then you keep going on about the cachous being used to improve her breath for kissing purposes - and then YOU ask ME to be serious...? Baffling stuff, quite baffling!

It's quite clear you do not read my posts very thoroughly, the reason I used the words "but seriously" was because in the first part of my post I was not being serious, i.e. I was replying to your rather strange sentence

“The latter then clears the street from all onlookers, whereafter he throws a packet of Strides favourite cachous into the yard. Wild with desire, she flings herself after them, catching them in the flight with her left hand.”

I jokingly (or not so) replied that if Druitt had observed this most athletic of catches, then he would not have hesitated in signing her up for Blackheath first eleven, good slip catchers being at a premium in the late 19th Century. This is why I started my second paragraph with “but seriously”

But seriously

There is no limit to the lengths witnesses can go to when describing the details of their observances. It may appear that the small detail described by Schwartz supports his story as being the whole truth, history often tells us otherwise.

Look at Packer, he described Stride as wearing a red flower a bit like a geranium, oh you might think this has the ring of truth for Stride was wearing a rose, why didn’t he say a rose? We all know of course that Packer was lying through his teeth.

Listen, look at the other evidence, the other witness statements, the fact that Stride was holding a packet of cachous in her hand, and ask yourself which story best fit’s the Scene.

A.) Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted in the street, or

B.) Schwartz merely saw stride talking with an acquaintance/lover/punter/Jack the ripper.

I think you’ll see (B) best fit’s the other known evidence.

All the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer!

You write:
"It's quite clear you do not read my posts very thoroughly, the reason I used the words "but seriously" was because in the first part of my post I was not being serious"

Ah, but I DO read your posts thoroughly, Observer. The fact that I took the liberty to use your wording to play a little semantic game does not change that.

"There is no limit to the lengths witnesses can go to when describing the details of their observances. It may appear that the small detail described by Schwartz supports his story as being the whole truth, history often tells us otherwise."

History, Observer, is of course also a history of freaks. If you search long enough you can find most creatures out there, including such ones that represent exceptions to common logic. That, however, does in no way change the fact that Schwartzīs testimony rings true.
There are other elements involved too, that I did not touch on yesterday, one of them being that Schwartz was not able to decide what role Pipeman was to be awarded in the drama. He could not say whether he was with BS man and subsequently chased Schwartz, or whether he was a frightened bystander, just like himself.

Things like these are simply not there in thought-up scenarios. In such things, the roles are divided clearly between the thought-up participators, since when you think a person up to join the scenario, YOU GIVE HIM A ROLE TO PLAY! It is simple logic - you do not invent scenarios where people have no roles, Observer.

To say that "such things could happen" is merely to find an easygoing companion to your "Schwartz could be lying" scenario. And there is no need for you to do so, is there? The domestic scenario covers it all and explains it neatly, using the exact wording given by Schwartz. Rejoice instead; we have nothing comparable in any other "Ripper" case, Observer!
The misconception that the Schwartz incident could not have taken place rests very much on the notion that people believe that it must have been heard. But we are dealing with a clubhouse full of open windows, and people singing their throats of inside it. Both time (of which we are always uncertain anyhow) and surrounding circumstances allow for it being a correct version of what happened, so it stands to reason that the shape of the Schwartz testimony is an extremely credible one, with numerous ingredients pointing away from it being cooked up.

Finally:

"Listen, look at the other evidence, the other witness statements, the fact that Stride was holding a packet of cachous in her hand, and ask yourself which story best fit’s the Scene.
A.) Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted in the street, or
B.) Schwartz merely saw stride talking with an acquaintance/lover/punter/Jack the ripper."

I would choose alternative A every day in the week, Observer. Though you may not have noticed, I have fitted all the details from Schwartz story in with such a scenario, including the cachous, and that clinches it for me. If that can be accomplished with no pushing or shoving, it is time to lend it an ear.
Without going too far into it all, I can say that I have been studying this case for a couple of decades, and I set out where most people set out at that time: as a firm believer of Jack being the bad guy.
...but I could never make ends meet that way, no matter how hard I tried. And God knows I tried, Observer. In Sweden, Ripperology is not a very common practice, so I had precious few to discuss it all with from the outset, but those who offered an opinion of Stride perhaps not being a Ripper victim, were always challenged by me.
When I finally came to my senses many years ago, it was a revelation. I think it is the closest I have ever gotten to understanding why people turn religious every now and then.
I am only saying this to underline that there is a good reason for me not to pounce at your alternative B, Observer. Been there, seen that, done that - and it was just plain wrong.

The best,

Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

My thoughts regarding the Stride murder has also changed over the years. I once believed as you do that Schwartz was telling the truth. I also believed that Stride was 100% a Ripper victim, there was even a time when I took Packer at face value. Not anymore.

I fully understand your scenario, but can not bring myself to believe that Stride, even if she knew her assailant, would calmly take out a packet of cachous after being assaulted. I also think you are quite wrong regarding the benefits of using cachous. These tiny sweetmeats as you call them were used to sweeten the breath, they were not a pacifier,or a sweet fix, they were gone, melted on the tongue before you could say the name Lipski.

The huge parma violets of the next generation were an attempt to turn cachous into what you envisage Stride using them as, namely a full blown sweetie bought as a sweet sucking fix.

Stride in my opinion used those cachous to sweeten her breath prior to kissing or being in close proximity to a man. Why would she need cachous if she had just been assaulted? Kissing that man who had just assaulted her does not make sense.

That, however, does in no way change the fact that Schwartzīs testimony rings true.

You talk of Schwartz's statement as having a ring of truth, what about Packer's statement? Dosn't it also have a ring of truth? The so called geranium pinned to her coat, the price of the grapes, the fine description of the man, the fine detail of them stopping and listening to the singers in the club. Do you believe Packer? Do you?

No Fisherman, I find the scene rests much easier in the water if Schwartz witnessed a placid Stride merely conversing with her accompanying male.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

...and I am fine with that, Observer - each one to his own!

Some final details:

"I ... can not bring myself to believe that Stride, even if she knew her assailant, would calmly take out a packet of cachous after being assaulted."

I can see the logic of that statement of yours applying very well IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT THAN THAT OF A DOMESTIC AFFAIR. But what we need to seek is a context where she was enough at ease to do so. And I have already shown you that such a context may well have been provided with BS as an aquaintance.

I do not think that she would have been at ease if BS had been a stranger to her, who dragged her into the yard after the initial brawl.

Nor do I think that she would have turned to her cachous in a situation where a new client/Jack suggested the yard. Especially not since her cachous were described as sweetmeats - that is to say candy, more or less, not strong breathfresheners. No sense bringing them out in a business situation where the client had already opted for you.

Like I have already told you, there was a very lengthy discussion on the old threads, where a number of posters supported the fact that "cachous" in 1888 would be one out of two types of tablets: strong cachous, or - thatīs right - sweetmeats. The latter ones were sugarbased, sweet flowerscented tablets, and although those who manufactured them would probably say that they gave you a breath comparable to angels, I think that such things were in fact a sly way of adding sale value to them. And those who bought them would have done so because they liked the sweet, sugarbased, flowerscented taste, and they would have used them as candy, regardless of how long time it took for them to melt on the tongue.

"Why would she need cachous if she had just been assaulted?"

Why would anybody need candy, Observer? Well, they donīt. Itīs just that they like it. And they eat it anytime, in the company of aquaintances not least. It is much like smoking - smokers who have just been assaulted are more likely to have a fag than give up on smoking, would t you agree?

By now I think we have clarified our respective stances on the matter, and I see no reason to prolong the discussion if nothing new surfaces.
You prefer to disbelieve Schwartz, and I choose to believe him.
It leaves me with a large number of details to fit into a scenario, whereas you have elegantly rid yourself of that problem.
Thing is, I CAN fit all them details into the frame and give them a credible explanation, so I donīt mind much. Moreover, like I have said, when you CAN fit the details of a testimony in with the actual events and the factual evidence, you donīt have to make any changes at all in the material handed down to us by history. So thatīs where I end up - and why.

...but then again, what if Diemschutz was lying too? What if there was no woman in the yard...?

Keep well, Observer!

Fisherman

[Observer]

...and I am fine with that, Observer - each one to his own!

Absolutely, and it has been mighty fine chewing the cud with you over the last few posts.

...

Some final details:


And I have already shown you that such a context may well have been provided with BS as an aquaintance.

It matters not to I Fisherman, aquaintance or not, the use of the cachous dictates the reality.

. I did do some surfing into the uses of cachous, and it appears that they are tiny little confections, used for sweetening the breath, as I said one suck and they’re gone, it would be pointless to use one of these tiny confections to calm the nerve, they’re gone in a second. The benefit for such a fleeting pleasure lies in the perfumed vapour they leave on the breath. How do I know that his was the version Stride used? The packet was so small that it was hidden from view, lodged between her thumb and finger, the cachous had to be the tiny version who’s sole purpose was to sweeten the breath. I believe Stride took out those cachous to sweeten her breath prior to getting down to the business of carousing with a male, a scene totally at odds with what Schwartz had described.

Take care

Observer

PS. I do have another piece of evidence that seems to support that Stride may have used the Breath sweetening variety of cachous, namely she was observed on two occasions that night kissing punter/lover/Jack the Ripper. Best and Gardner, and Marshall both observed her kissing an individual.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

“cachou: a candy and breath freshener “
James Joyce, “A portrait of the artist as a young man”

I really wish you had not done this to me, Observer. Like I have said, I have already gone through the cachous history in a lengthy battle on the net, and I was hoping not to have to go through it again. Much as I enjoy tangling with you, I distinctly dislike having to do the same job two times, but it seems there is no other way open to me, so here goes:
Last time over, I found – after an exhausting search – a very good internet site that told the history of the cachous. I have not been able to find it again, and the battle I had on the net went down together with lots of more material when the old boards crashed.
So I cannot give you that material, Iīm afraid. But I CAN give you enough to show you that the cachous issue is an issue of candy, more or less.

Now, when people speak about cachous as small, very strong breath-fresheners, they mostly have the classical Cachou Lajaunie from France in mind. It made itself famous by artistic posters that are sold for nice prices at auctions today. But they were not even around in 1888:

“ Cachou Lajaunie
These tiny licorice-based candies are still made in Toulouse, where they were invented by the pharmacist Leon Lajaunie in 1890. Don't let their size fool you: these candies are extraordinarily strong, a result of the mint extract which is added to the licorice, and are a powerful breath-freshener. The trademark small yellow tin was invented by a clock-maker friend of Lajaunie, who designed it to fit in a watch-pocket.”

To instead start at the true beginning of the cachous history, some say we should back down to the thirteenth century:

“ A 13th century Verdun apothecary is credited with the idea of coating his pills in sugar. They proved so popular that a grocer did the same with almonds. Louis XIV decreed that dragées be distributed to school children every New Year's Day. Today the French offer dragées to family and friends on special occasions: weddings, baptisms, and the like.”

But this is not true, for there is actually a French firm that has an older recipe:

”Violet and Anis de Flavigny
This candy, consisting of a grain of aniseed coated in sugar, is perhaps the oldest in France, mentioned in a document as early as 872. In the 17th century, when the candy was manufactured by the Ursuline sisters, six months were needed to add and dry the successive coats of sugar. “

And this process, coating with sugar, was something that lived on through the centuries:

“Muskadines, or kissing comfits, for sweetening the breath were made in the 16th and 17th century by scenting sugar paste with musk, rosewater and orris powder and cutting them into diamond shaped tablets with a pastry jagger. Although these were not made in the balancing pan and were really a type of lozenge, or floral cachou, the early 19th century confectioner Jarrin describes very similar gum-paste comfits which were flavoured with “coffee, chocolate, vanilla, bergamot etc. cut with tools of different forms, as lozenges, hearts, clubs etc…with three coatings of syrup to create a smooth glazed finish”
The art of confectionary, writer: Ivan Day

So here we have the cachou (the word is French, but they got it from the Portuguese to begin with), and we can immediately see that it was candy that did NOT just melt away on the tongue – it was a sort of lozenge, meant to suck on.

Moving on, this happens next:
“An alphabet mix cut from pastel sugar paste can still be bought in shops supplying sweets for small children. Letter shapes (now made from chocolate) remain a Christmas novelty in Holland. The paste was originally flavoured with musk and ambergris, which must have made it very attractive, and suggests it was not just intended for children. Stronger perfumes than flowers were, perhaps, a necessity to sweeten the breath after too many sugar banquets. Kissing comfits, as detailed by Robert May in 1685, were sugar paste containing musk, civet, ambergris, and orris powder. These were printed in moulds or rolled into little pellets and then squeezed flat with a seal. Similar little floral cachous lasted well into the twentieth century (even now, scented purple ‘Parma Violet’ sweets are made as a line for small girls: kissing-comfits for dolls’ tea-parties).”
Consuming Wealth and Eating Words: Sugar Paste

… and there you are, we suddenly get a cachou that may have been of a distinctly more adult type. But the sugar paste types offered were of a great variety of tastes, and floral cachous were quite common, lastin into the 20th century.
That means they passed the 18th century as evinced here:
“In Paris, however, fortunate citizens could patronise the confiserie Au Fidel Berger, whose 1772 poster advertised cherries in eau-de-vie, six kinds of chocolate, violet-scented cachous, orange-blossom syrup and toffee-d pistachios.”
Research centre for the history of food and drink

Arriving at Jacks century:

“In Europe and the U.S., tins of breath fresheners, called cachous, became a must-have item in the 1800s. The candies (sucked or chewed to "disguise a stinking breath," according to one 1850 self-help book) were made from cardamom, ambergris, musk, essence of violet, essence of rose, licorice or oil of cinnamon.”
Los Angeles Times

So they were sucked or chewed upon, meaning that they would last for some time. And though they were promoted as something that would improve youre breath, they were still “candies”, they still came in a huge number of taste varieties and they still carried their sugary heritage with them. In fact, as Liz put one of them in her mouth, she followed a thousand year old tradition of munching candy, as can be seen from the above.

Add to this that a number of posters, mrs Marple, Jane Coram, Sam Flynn among others stepped forward the last time over to testify about their memories of cachous, something that their parents and grandparents had been eating too. They all speak of tasty, sugary, mildly flavoured tablets to suck on – candy, in other words. The reason for their helping out THAT time was that the poster I exchanged with would not admit that Strides cachous could have been anything but strong pills ā la Lajaunie. The fact that I gave him the same type of material I am giving you did not sway him in the least...

Now, may we please, please see the cachous for what they were?

All the best,

Fisherman

PS. You state that the fact that she was seen by Best and Gardner kissing a man implies that her cachous were of the breath-freshening kind. But, Observer, we are not even sure that she HAD the cachous at that time are we? And are we to believe that she - and the rest of Victorian London - only would kiss after having used a breath-freshening cachous? Really...!

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

One thing is certain, the type of cachous as remembered by Sam, and Jane et al, was not the kind that Liz stride grasped, I myself remember those cachous from the 50's and 60's, and if they are the kind of cachous that I suspect they are, there's no way a bag of them could have remained hidden almost from view stuck between Liz Stride's fourth finger and thumb, they would be too large. Isn't it true that this very small packet, contained very small cachous, hardly helpfull as a suck em and see treat. Another thing is certain, neither you or I will ever know for sure what kind of cachous Liz Stride was using on the night of her murder.

PS. You state that the fact that she was seen by Best and Gardner kissing a man implies that her cachous were of the breath-freshening kind. But, Observer, we are not even sure that she HAD the cachous at that time are we?

Come on Fisherman where is she going to purchase cachous at that time of night? Oh I'm not saying that there were not shops open at that time of night, but if there were shops open and she did purchase the cachous after the Best and Gardiner sighting why did the shopkeeper not come forward, surely he would have read that Liz Stride was clutching a packet of cachous when found.

And are we to believe that she - and the rest of Victorian London - only would kiss after having used a breath-freshening cachous? Really...!

She had them on her did she not? She had taken them out, presumably to take one, and she had been seen in a kissing embrace on two occasions that night.

You have no evidence that Stride sucked on a cachous as a means of calming herself , as a means of comfort. I do have evidence, albeit tenuous, that would suggest that Stride used a cachous to sweeten her breath.

a. The fact that she had been seen kissing a man that night

b. There is some evidence that Stride had dental problems, her two front teeth being absent, thus indicating a possible foul breath.

All the Best, and Gardiner

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Observer!

"neither you or I will ever know for sure what kind of cachous Liz Stride was using on the night of her murder"

Exactly! And that was very much my point as I started out to disprove your first suggestion that cachous were breath-fresheners only. That is far too common a misconception.

"Come on Fisherman where is she going to purchase cachous at that time of night?"

Who says SHE bought them, to begin with? If they were sweets and totally unconnected to plying a prostitutes trade, they may well have been a gift. Incidentally, I have pointed out at a number of times that none - none! - of the other victims belonging to the Whitechapel murders were found with breath-fresheners on them, nor have I heard of any other prostituted Victorian murder victim who was. Why is that, do you think, if they were such an obvious tool of the trade? Hmm?

Finally, when you write that "The fact that she had been seen kissing a man that night" constitutes some sort of evidence for her using cachous to engage in kissing at all, I will tell you two things.
The first one is that prostitutes of our days do not engage in kissing with their customers. If that applied back then - and there is every reason to believe that it did - it points AWAY from her being on the game that night.
The second one is that if prostitutes DID kiss customers regularly in 1888, and all used cachous to improve their breath - well, then that brings us back to my former point again: What happened to Marthaīs cachous? Where were Pollys sweetmeats? Kates? Marys? Aliceīs? Frances?
Was Liz Stride the one and only prostitute in St Georgeīs, Whitechapel and Spitalfields who had the ingenuity to see that she would be left without customers if she had no cachous? Methinks not.

It all falls apart when you look at it, Observer, donīt you realize that? The fact that no ther victim had cachous, Now THAT is what I call evidence. And solid such, not tenuous!

So itīs only fair that you came up with "All the Best, and Gardiner". That is a lot more brilliant than it is to suggest a habit among East end prostitutes that is adamantly contradicted by the evidence!

With the sweetest of cach ... sorry, greetings!

Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

I think the wheels are starting to fall off this debate, the bottom of the barrel draws ever nearer.

Who says SHE bought them, to begin with? If they were sweets and totally unconnected to plying a prostitutes trade, they may well have been a gift.

Just to reiterate

It matters not who bought the cachous, the crucial question Fisherman is the intended use of the cachous. You maintain that they were a sweetmeat used as I would use a polo mint, a cola cube, or my favourite a rhubarb and custard, it therefore follows that they could have been used as a nerve calmer after she was assaulted the first time. I maintain that they were a means of sweetening the breath. I posted earlier that Stride's lower left jaw was devoid of teeth, had they rotted away? I think this is likely, there is therefore good reason to suspect that her breath smelt. If she had been assaulted prior to being slashed, I can not see her using the cachous as a breath freshener, why freshen your breath for a male acquintance if he has just assaulted you?

Incidentally, I have pointed out at a number of times that none - none! - of the other victims belonging to the Whitechapel murders were found with breath-fresheners on them, nor have I heard of any other prostituted Victorian murder victim who was. Why is that, do you think, if they were such an obvious tool of the trade? Hmm?

It all falls apart when you look at it, Observer, donīt you realize that? The fact that no ther victim had cachous, Now THAT is what I call evidence. And solid such, not tenuous!

This observation you found three quarters of the way down the barrel. Nothing falls apart Fisherman. Stride was an individual, it matters not a jot if there is no evidence to suggest that other prostitutes used cachous. Stride used them, they were found on her, her breath in all probability stank, and she was observed kissing on two occasion on the night of her murder.


Cachous me when you can

Observer

[Fisherman]

Hi Observer!

A last few points, since you are not totally correct on my stance.

"You maintain that they were a sweetmeat used as I would use a polo mint, a cola cube, or my favourite a rhubarb and custard, it therefore follows that they could have been used as a nerve calmer after she was assaulted the first time."

They MAY have been sweetmeats, and I really think they WERE sweetmeats since they were thus described. They do not, however HAVE to have been sweetmeats to suit my thinking on it, I am just as fine with breath-fresheners since these too may have played the same role as todays polo mints - they freshen the breath AND they are tasty candy. Likewise, there MAY have been an element of nerve-calming involved, but there does not HAVE to have been.

The only thing that matters here is that she felt comfortable enough to take them out in the company she was with in the yard! And THAT company would most probably have been that of BS man, since she was left with him, and him only by Schwartz and Pipeman a VERY short time before she entered the yard. And if BS man was who she entered the yard with - leaving us with no need to bring ANOTHER violent man on the stage - then he was the man she felt comfortable with. And the conclusion that she may have known him becomes more or less inescapable the moment she brings her cachous out.

On your stance that Stride was an isolated case of ingenuous cachousmunching, and in regard to your assertion that she was "using" breathfresheners since her missing teeth would have rotted away, leaving her with an unpleasant smell coming from her mouth, there may just be something to it.
Seeing as you make a number of assumptions about the cachous and the status of her oral freshness with quite a few missing bits, and seeing as that stinks too, if you donīt mind my wording, you may perhaps be onto something: Missing bits and pieces may well produce a foul odour.

...and that is where I think I have said what I have to say on the matter. I respect your opting for another picture of what happened, but I really donīt think that there is anything speaking against the possibility that she would have felt at ease enough in the yard to take her cachous out in a setting such as I have proposed.

"Cachous me when you can"? Iīll cachous you in my Stride, Observer!

Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

The only thing that matters here is that she felt comfortable enough to take them out in the company she was with in the yard! And THAT company would most probably have been that of BS man, since she was left with him, and him only by Schwartz and Pipeman a VERY short time before she entered the yard. And if BS man was who she entered the yard with - leaving us with no need to bring ANOTHER violent man on the stage - then he was the man she felt comfortable with.

Felt comfortable with a man who had thrown her to the ground, a man who was enraged enough to hurl an anti Semitic insult at a Jew who mererly tried to skirt around them? You see this is where I can not envisage Liz Stride calming down enough to take out a packet of sweets. The only way I can accept your scenario is if (as has been suggested) the killer had a perverse sense of humour, and placed the cachous in Stride's hand after he had cut her throat. I am quite sure in my own mind that the man seen by Best and Gardiner, the man seen by Marshall, and Schwartz's man are one and the same.

The fact that she was seen with this man for a considerable lenght of time seems to suggest tha he was not a punter

He was observed kissing Stride, again a pointer to the fact that he was not a punter, perhaps Stride took out the cachous in view of him earlier in the night, that way he knew she had them on her person. If he was not a punter, and had merely took Stride out for the night, Stride might have took exception to his suggestion that they perform a sex act in the IWMC yard. He becomes enraged, throws Stride to the ground, and then drags her into the yard where he slits her thoat. He remembers her cachous, and as a little joke to himself takes them out, and places them in her hand, she of course will not be needing cachous anymore.

Far fetched? Yes, No?

Best wishes from cloud cuckoo land

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman

The only thing that matters here is that she felt comfortable enough to take them out in the company she was with in the yard! And THAT company would most probably have been that of BS man, since she was left with him, and him only by Schwartz and Pipeman a VERY short time before she entered the yard. And if BS man was who she entered the yard with - leaving us with no need to bring ANOTHER violent man on the stage - then he was the man she felt comfortable with.

Felt comfortable with a man who had thrown her to the ground, a man who was enraged enough to hurl an anti Semitic insult at a Jew who mererly tried to skirt around them? You see this is where I can not envisage Liz Stride calming down enough to take out a packet of sweets. The only way I can accept your scenario is if (as has been suggested) the killer had a perverse sense of humour, and placed the cachous in Stride's hand after he had cut her throat. I am quite sure in my own mind that the man seen by Best and Gardiner, the man seen by Marshall, and Schwartz's man are one and the same.

The fact that she was seen with this man for a considerable length of time seems to suggest that he was not a punter

He was observed kissing Stride, again a pointer to the fact that he was not a punter, perhaps Stride took out the cachous in view of him earlier in the night, that way he knew she had them on her person. If he was not a punter, and had merely took Stride out for the night, Stride might have took exception to his suggestion that they perform a sex act in the IWMC yard. He becomes enraged, throws Stride to the ground, and then drags her into the yard where he slits her thoat. He remembers her cachous, he noticed where she had put them on her person, and as a little joke to himself takes them out, and places them in her hand, she of course will not be needing cachous anymore.

Far fetched? Yes, No?

Best wishes from cloud cuckoo land

Observer