Schwartz and Brown

[lynn cates]

hmmmm

Hello Richard. That is very interesting. Frankly, there is nothing to rule out the possibility that Jack had Liz as a girl friend, and did not initially intend to kill OR mutilate.

In fact, extrapolating from the case of Liz, we might assume that he had a relationship with just about all of the C5. If so, that could open up a great avenue of new research.

It would also answer a great many questions.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello CD. Not a bit of it. The hypothesis, unless I am mistaken, is that BSM thought Liz was soliciting (or something of that sort) and so tried to get her to come away, pulling her. He yelled (and this is Fisherman's point), "Lizzie!" and here beginneth, more or less, the Schwartz business.

Later, they went into the yard, away from the public location on Berner, ostensibly to discuss the situation. Liz was exiting, after venting her spleen, and went for the cachous (like a smoker pauses to light up). Something infuriated BSM and he "saw red," yanked her over backward by the scarf (her grip tightening with the incipient choke), cutting her (and the scarf) as she was falling.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello All,
Was BS JacK the Ripper?
If so then the Whitechapel killer was a brutal thug, to walk up to a woman standing at a entrance to a club, and grap hold of her. presumably by the hand or arm, to entice her away is hardly the way to charm even a prostitute.
I am getting the impression that here we have a man that would not take no for a answer, a person of great impatience, that would show accumulating violence as he approached the site of his kill.
I am drawn back to Nichols, and the witness reports, which indicate that she was initially attacked in Brady street, and sounds of running or of a chase...could that haved been Polly beiing dragged along by a hand.
I am drawn again by Eddowes bruise [ of recent origin] betweem thumb, and finger of her left hand... was this the result of a impatient killer, pulling her into the square.?
And we have coxs neice report, many years later, of her aunt hearing kelly say 'All right my luv . dont pull me along' as they emerged from the passage.
Again as the place of the kill was nearly reached so did the force.
What is to say that Annie Chapman., was not tugged through the passage, and that roughness encouraged Annie to say' No?
I know its all speculation again, but it might show what type of person we may be looking for.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

So are you saying that her refusal to do so made him take a knife to her throat?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello CD. I thought that he was trying to get her to come away? At least, that was the hypothesis for motive.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

C.d writes:

"You both stated that she most likely didn't have the cachous in her hand when she fell to the ground. I agree 100% so I am completely at a loss to understand why Liz would take them out if still in the presence of the BS man."

But, c.d, I have explained this dozens of times! I have als pointes to the very real possibility that she was not thrown to the ground but instead fell, breaking loose from BS mans grip. Just back a few posts and you will find it - aplenty!

"I wouldn't pop those champagne corks just yet boys."

You have never read Axel Sandemose, I take it? "I always take my pleasures out in advance - if not, Iīm constantly deprived of them" ...

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I agree that it is quite possible that she fell and I have pointed that out numerous times myself. But here is the problem and that is motive. It is generally assumed that the BS man's motive was anger possibly as a result of some slight on Liz's part. Those who hold to the anger theory point to Liz being thrown to the ground as a sign of that anger. If we remove that anger where does that leave us in terms of motive?

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

..or just somebody realizing that his intention was not gonna work, and gave up on it.

In which case, what's wrong with just hurling her to the ground there and then? Why spin her around and throw her in the opposite direction from that which he originally intended to escort her? If that isn't a problem for you, and you don't think that's remotely strange, that's fine. I find it rather odd myself, which is why I'm inclined to the view that he never intended to take her into the street.

What I said was that since Schwartz said that she cried out three times BUT NOT VERY LOUD, he must have BELIEVED that she was not using her voice to itīs full capacity.

I don't think that necessarily follows. It's equally likely that he "believed" that Stride didn't have a particularly loud voice. I'm not convinced, incidentally, that people generally concentrate on the volume of their screams in order to ensure that they correspond precisely to the gravity of the situation.

...meaning what, Ben? That you do not agree? Sarcasm is all good and well, but it does not enlighten us much, does it?

How was that sarcastic? If I wanted to be sarcastic, I would have said. "Of course, Fisherman, your theory represents the dizzy heights of deductive brilliance to which we all aspire, and there's no way any of us mere mortals can possibly accuse it of "not adding up". As it happens, I registered genuine surprise at what I considered a rather thrusting and boastful warning not to challenge your theory. That's the opposite of sarcastic.

But are you not speaking of Smiths man here? I do not think that he is identical with Marshalls man/BS man.

I think he's very close to Marshall's man, personally. So someone else arrived on the scene in between the two visits from the Marshall/BS man? That must have been a very brief visit from Smith's man.

Nor am I in any way certain of BS man being "drunk", since that was something that was not reported in the police papers, but only in the Star.

So, by extension, you can't be "in any way certain" of BS man having a respectable appearance for precisely the same reason?

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

You state:

"Each detail, in fact, lends itself admirably to the aqaintance perspective."

It does? Well, I'll be damned. Who woulda thunk it?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"You both stated that she most likely didn't have the cachous in her hand when she fell to the ground. I agree 100% so I am completely at a loss to understand why Liz would take them out if still in the presence of the BS man."

But, c.d, I have explained this dozens of times! I have als pointes to the very real possibility that she was not thrown to the ground but instead fell, breaking loose from BS mans grip. Just back a few posts and you will find it - aplenty!

"I wouldn't pop those champagne corks just yet boys."

You have never read Axel Sandemose, I take it? "I always take my pleasures out in advance - if not, Iīm constantly deprived of them" ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"my suspicion is that she was in a position to do both, and that by clenching her fists, she could both fend off her attacker (or at least attempt to do so with futility) and retain the cachous which she could well have considered valuable."

Once again, Ben, you are welcome to whichever wiew you like. You agree with me that the normal thing would be to fend the fall off, it seems, and thatīs a good thing. After that, one must always realize that there may be exceptions to most rules.

"If we accepted Schwartz at his word, and that he saw precisely what was recorded without any confusion, we have a somewhat illogical succession of events"

..or just somebody realizing that his intention was not gonna work, and gave up on it. And Schwartz is what he have - besides an innumerable amount of potential interpretations of him, all of them bringing us smaller or larger distances from what he actually said.

"If we left Schwartz's account untouched without any interpretation whatsoever, we're left with unresolved grey areas that don't make much sense. I'd include the "into the street, onto the pavement" detail in that catergory."

Together with what? And why would it be strange if somebody dragging a person out from the gateway towards the street, would throw that person to the pavement after having spun her around? Not much of a grey area to me - until we start to "interpret", that is.
As for the rest, I have supplied answers to all of it. Each detail, in fact, lends itself admirably to the aquaintance perspective.


My wording:
" we can feel certain that he was of the belief that she could have cried out louder if she had wanted to."

...aaand yours:

"I can't feel remotely certain of that, unless Schwartz was previously familiar with the pitch of Stride's "normal" scream. If he wasn't - as we can reasonably assume - then he had no way of determining whether or not she was deliberately lowering her screams"

But that, Ben, was not what I was saying, was it? What I said was that since Schwartz said that she cried out three times BUT NOT VERY LOUD, he must have BELIEVED that she was not using her voice to itīs full capacity. Alternatively, he may have thought that she was hindered to do so by physical reasons - but that is not as credible an explanation, is it?
What I did NOT say was that Schwartz could judge the percentage level of her outcries against any known top level.

My wording:

"Donīt tell me that it does not all add up. It does."

And your:

"Woah!"

...meaning what, Ben? That you do not agree? Sarcasm is all good and well, but it does not enlighten us much, does it?

"What doesn't quite add up for me is the idea that the individual in question would be seen with Stride at 12:30 only to disappear alone in the direction of Commercial Street, come straight back down, suddenly drunk, just ten minutes later with a radically different attitude."

People with an attitude is nothing new to me, Ben. But are you not speaking of Smiths man here? I do not think that he is identical with Marshalls man/BS man. Nor am I in any way certain of BS man being "drunk", since that was something that was not reported in the police papers, but only in the Star. And even there, no large degree of drunkenness seems to have been at hand.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

nein, non, nyet

Hello CD. Sarcastic? Not a bit of it. Sorry if it looked so.

Actually, there are many pro-Liz people out there, and I applaud it. I heartily wish she were a Jack victim--well, you know what I mean.

If only:

1. Liz weren't holding the cachous. Then she could have been twirled ante mortem.

OR

2. She had been felled by the gates.

OR

3. Placed head towards gates; feet towards door.

Why not start a thread to save the girl? I'd be delighted to assist. Actually, I have a few (strained) ideas here.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

It would seem that your conversion came complete with sarcasm. Tis a pity.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

mission impossible

Hi CD. The biggest hurdle is to convince someone that "Jack" had nothing to do with it. (He said, evincing a hearty grin.)

You see, Jack could easily have sneeked up behind her and done his deed. But the problem is, "Why is she exiting?" Natural answer: mission accomplished.

But it wasn't! No sign of recent connection in Liz or the other C4.

The best.
LC

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

So do you have a suspect that can overcome all those hurdles that you put forth?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Q and A chain

Hello CD. Well:

"Sorry to see that you have gone over to the dark side. Sometimes those conversions don't last so I will continue to hold out hope."

Mine will last until the forensic lacunae are supplied.

"I hate to show my ignorance here but I still don't understand your point. What does her exiting the yard (if that was the case) correspond to?"

So, you've still not tried the reconstruction?

Try this.

Q: How does Liz meet Jack?

A: Why, she was soliciting. (For the purpose of our thought experiment, please ignore all the evidence that she was not.)

Q: Wasn't the club an odd place to do that?

A: Yes, but, you see, Liz figured a lot of Russian Jews singing folk music--well, it's known to act as an aphrodesiac. So she planned to cash in. (Again, feel free to ignore the evidence that she had "closed up shop" for the night.)

Q: OK. Then what?

A: Well, don't you know, Liz hits up Jack.

Q: Splendid! Where did they go? (Feel free to ignore Schwartz. Let's place him a block or 2 away and confused about events. Really, moving is a complete pain and tends to fuddle one.)

A: Why, into the yard! That's a very dark 18 feet of passageway. Just right for, well, you get the idea.

Q: OK, I get it. And so Liz and Jack ignored the open door at the kitchen and proceeded to walk about 9 feet (3 yards) inside the gate. No worries about coitus interruptus (Liz) or mutilatus interruptus (Jack)?

A: Right.

Q: So, did she stand against the building?

A: Likely. And when her back was turned to Jack and she faced the wall, she thought, "You know, a sweetmeat would be lovely right about now." Then suddenly, Jack seizes her scarf, pulls her away, whirls her about, facing the gates, throws her to the ground, sits on her with his knees. Next, he looks into his Gladstone bag and thinks, "Blast! Forgot the long knife. Oh well, this short, rounded bugger will do nicely." Then, before he can roll her over, "Hark! What's that I hear? Oops. gotta run!"

While Liz, as she exits this world thinks, "Woe is me! Ask for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave woman. But, (gasp), but, (gurgle). I . . . I . . .
didn't spill those ruddy cachous . . . aaarrrggghhh."

Q: But isn't it easier to assume she was exiting the yard and so came into that position? Moreover, would not her assailant easily pull her down from behind in one stroke while cutting?

A: Boo, you iconoclast!

Cheers!
LC