Schwartz and Brown

[perrymason]

The cachous are not likely in the hand of someone who felt imminent danger cd. Its that simple.

I couldn't agree more.

c.d.

Must be 2 moons in the sky.

Cheers mate.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"it doesnt work if she is in a situation that involves her feeling threatened.
Which the BSM incident might do....if he was a stranger....and if he stayed in her company.
The cachous are not likely in the hand of someone who felt imminent danger cd. Its that simple."

I really think it is, Michael; well put. And to think that this simple solution has been at hand for 121 years, during which Jack has remained the favoured suspect throughout...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Apologies if my standards seem to be slacking, CD! But thanks for the kind words all the same.

I don't, however, see any problem with Stride producing her cachous on the streets before BS arrived on the scene, especially given Lynn's useful insight into the shape and size of the things (thanks, Lynn!). The balled-up-fist scenario is perfectly credible, to my mind, and it was not as if there's any evidence to suggest she endured multiple falls.

Hi Fish,

Glad we seem to agree that a compressed carotid artery could well have accounted for the presence of the cachous in her hand inside the yard. However, I do not consider it remotely unlikely that she'd retain the cachous as she fell during the incident reported by Schwartz who, incidentally, observed that he "turned her round" and threw her onto the pavement. Unless he was throwing her one direction and then the other in quick succession, I'd say it's more than likely that BS intended to direct her into the yard, but was hampered by her attempts to retreat in the opposite direction - into the streets.

What is your suggestion? Can you find a motive for an unknown assailant to do this? Can you account for why she cried out three times - in a lowered voice?

Well, I'm firmly on the fence here, which is why I've avoided nailing my colours to any particular mast, but no, I can't really assign any particular motive for an unknown assailant to kill Stride as he did, just as I can't do any such thing for Eddowes, Kelly, Chapman, Tabram, and Nichols. As for the "lowered" voice, I doubt she had any particular reason to lower it. Maybe she didn't have a particularly loud scream, or was too preoccupied with fending off her attacker. I'm afraid I don't quite share your confidence that Stride was killed by someone known to her (not that I find the suggestion particularly improbable) or that she must have produced the cachous once inside the gates.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Michael writes:

"it doesnt work if she is in a situation that involves her feeling threatened.
Which the BSM incident might do....if he was a stranger....and if he stayed in her company.
The cachous are not likely in the hand of someone who felt imminent danger cd. Its that simple."

I really think it is, Michael; well put. And to think that this simple solution has been at hand for 121 years, during which Jack has remained the favoured suspect throughout...!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Where were you when I made that same argument about a hundred times before? Now if you could only make the logical conclusion that she WOULD have felt threatened by someone who just threw her to the ground you might be on to something.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"However, I do not consider it remotely unlikely that she'd retain the cachous as she fell during the incident reported by Schwartz"

Sorry, Ben - but I do. People who fall fend the fall of by means of opening their hands and using the palms. What is there in the hand is dropped. Unless it is a bottle of nitroglycerin it can easily be picked up again afterwards.

"I'd say it's more than likely that BS intended to direct her into the yard, but was hampered by her attempts to retreat in the opposite direction - into the streets."

That is turning things upside down, Ben. Schwartz is crystal clear on it: BS man initially tried to drag her with him, into the street. She resisted, was swung round and flung to the ground. That means that we have a question of what was the purpose of dragging her into the street.
I have an answer. It is a very obvious one, and, once again, totally consistent with the aquaintance scenario.

"I can't really assign any particular motive for an unknown assailant to kill Stride as he did"

I can. And the chain of evidence holds true all the way. And, to be honest, when such a chain can be created, with no fantastic ingredients at all but only very ordinary bits and pieces all pointing to a very common murder scenario, the logic dictates that we may well be dealing with the correct solution.

"Maybe she didn't have a particularly loud scream"

We of course cannot tell, Ben. But we CAN tell that she kept her voice down to such an extent that Schwartz noted it as being strange - he would reasonably have expected her to cry out significantly louder. And once again, if we assume that the two knew each other, we find a very plausible explanation!

"I'm afraid I don't quite share your confidence that Stride was killed by someone known to her (not that I find the suggestion particularly improbable) or that she must have produced the cachous once inside the gates."

That is your prerogative. As long as you realize and admit that I can build a functioning chain that involves each and every element included in the slaying, explaining them all and giving them significance, I´m quite fine with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:

"Where were you when I made that same argument about a hundred times before?"

I was here, c.d - I´ve been around since early jurassic days, you know!

"Now if you could only make the logical conclusion that she WOULD have felt threatened by someone who just threw her to the ground you might be on to something."

She may just as well have known that he would feel guilty, and that may have made her feel that her time had come for retaliation, c.d. Moreover, we still do not KNOW that she was "thrown" to the ground. She may have resisted his dragging her into the street and fallen when he lost his grip!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Ben,

What if this was a modern murder and the victim was found with lip balm or lipstick in their hand? Or Tic Tacs?

And as for the scenario that she had them in her hand during the alleged altercation, she isnt likely to have clenched them as she did when she was being choked, so my guess is some would have spilled out when she fell and it would be noticeable that she went down with her hand clenched rather than open to brace herself for the landing.

Plus, she has to keep them in her hand for the balance of her life...anywhere from 1 minute after the assault to as much as 14 minutes.....that is of course assuming she is cut as Diemshutz pulled in. Which is the only reasonable reason she would be untouched after that....if he was The Ripper of course.

All the best Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Unless it is a bottle of nitroglycerin it can easily be picked up again afterwards.

I thought we just established that a handful of tiny sweets can't be "easily picked up again afterwards", especially on a darkened street. I think we ought to be careful of generalizations too. "People" might extend their palm when they fall, but that could easily change if they find themselves in a situation in which they are holding something valuable to them that can not be so easily retrieved if relinquished.

She resisted, was swung round and flung to the ground. That means that we have a question of what was the purpose of dragging her into the street.

Exactly. It seems odd for BS to have pulled her into the street with the intention of taking her in that direction only for him to "then turn her around" and throw her onto the footway, which was in the opposite direction. My explanation is that he never intended to pulll her towards the street - it just appeared that way because Stride attempted to flee in that direction.

with no fantastic ingredients at all but only very ordinary bits and pieces all pointing to a very common murder scenario, the logic dictates that we may well be dealing with the correct solution

If you've already decided that the evidence points in the direction of a "very common murder" it isn't really surprising that you'd consider it the "correct solution", and I don't begrudge you that. I'm sure you've noticed that others posting here are of a different persuasion, and feel the evidence points in a different direction.

Did Schwartz really register and surprise at the woman not screaming more loudly? I can't recall that detail, off hand. I don't find it particularly unfathomable myself.

As long as you realize and admit that I can build a functioning chain that involves each and every element included in the slaying

I'd be the first to commend you on giving the whole thing a great deal of thought, certainly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

And as for the scenario that she had them in her hand during the alleged altercation, she isnt likely to have clenched them as she did when she was being choked

There was no evidence of any choking taking place at the time of the Schwartz encounter. She may have experienced the sudden compression of the carotid artery once inside the yard, however, and she was more than likely to clench her fists - and anything ensconced therein - in such a scenario.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,



There was no evidence of any choking taking place at the time of the Schwartz encounter. She may have experienced the sudden compression of the carotid artery once inside the yard, however, and she was more than likely to clench her fists - and anything ensconced therein - in such a scenario.

All the best,
Ben

Hey Ben,

Not sure my point was clear enough...sudden choking would likely cause the hand to clench in a way that is more intense than it would if the person was merely startled and caught off guard.

Meaning,..if Schwartz's story is the accurate one, BSM could have known her or not and just caught her off guard. When she falls her reflex arm movement would be to try and stop that fall...hands would go to the earth, a semi clenched one with cachous in it would involuntarily open as much as possible given the millisecond of time it would take for her to fall.

But her hand was locked on that packet in a way that suggested her involuntary response was not to try and arrest her fall..... her hand didnt open at all...it gripped.

Thats very sudden, quick, and totally out of left field as far as Liz is concerned, based on the cachous and likely times she might avail herself of one or 2. I see the taking of cachous as very much the same type of thing as a primping of hair, or a smoothing down of a skirt, maybe with a lint brush ....or a check in the compact at how the lipstick looks.

Something one does when at ease and preparing to be seen by someone they want to be sure they look and smell good for.

Best regards as always Ben

[Observer]

Hi Gentlemen

Dr Blackwell spilt the cachous, so in all probability they were intact in Liz Strides hand when she was found. When recalled Dr Blackwell stated

" I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Hi Gentlemen

Dr Blackwell spilt the cachous, so in all probability they were intact in Liz Strides hand when she was found. When recalled Dr Blackwell stated

" I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand."

all the best

Observer

And when we consider that this "packet" was actually fairly fragile folded tissue, its all the more reason to suspect she did not have these in her hand when she had her Schwartz incident.

Cheers mate

[Ben]

hands would go to the earth, a semi clenched one with cachous in it would involuntarily open as much as possible given the millisecond of time it would take for her to fall.

Not necessarily, Mike, at least I know of no physiological rule that dictates as much. I do, however, see your point about the apparant gripping of the cachous, and that could well have occured inside the yard.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I thought we just established that a handful of tiny sweets can't be "easily picked up again afterwards", especially on a darkened street. I think we ought to be careful of generalizations too. "People" might extend their palm when they fall, but that could easily change if they find themselves in a situation in which they are holding something valuable to them that can not be so easily retrieved if relinquished."

My feeling, Ben, is that we actually NEED to "generalize" here, since people VERY generally prefer to save themselves before they ponder saving a few cachous wrapped in paper tissue. It is a reaction much governed by the spine and not by the brain, and it applies universally. Any difference in opinion on your behalf is something you are welcome to, of course!

"My explanation is that he never intended to pulll her towards the street - it just appeared that way because Stride attempted to flee in that direction."

I´ll just settle for Schwartz´s explanation, since he was the one who saw it going down. The reasonable thing to argue is that Schwartz saw an effort on BS mans behalf to pull her away from her position: "The man tried to pull the woman into the street". That sentence leaves no room for any doubt about which is the reasonable interpretation. The emerging picture is one where he grabs Stride by the arm and pulls, whereas she resists (it says that he TRIED to pull her into the street, implying that she did not comply). After that it says that "he turned her round and threw her down on the footway". This may have been exactly what happened, but there is also the possibility that the turning round that Schwartz saw could have been a combination of a grip lost and an effort on Strides behalf to break loose.

I understand how you see things and what you suggest, Ben, but it remains a scenario that has to settle for a place lower on the list than the scenario of which Schwartz bore witness and spoke. Once again, if you are of another meaning and think that your suggestion should be awarded as much value as Schwartz´s own interpretation - fine by me.

"If you've already decided that the evidence points in the direction of a "very common murder" it isn't really surprising that you'd consider it the "correct solution", and I don't begrudge you that. I'm sure you've noticed that others posting here are of a different persuasion, and feel the evidence points in a different direction."

What I have decided is that the chain of events and the built-in details ALL match with a scenario in which Stride was cut by somebody she knew very well. If we use this perspective, we find that we can account for all the little things that have been regarded as riddles for 121 years - the cachous, the blood on the hand, the lowered voice, why she went into the yard, why she was cut comparatively shallow and not eviscerated, why she seemed to bump into only respectable appearing men of the same height and age that night and so on.
As you wisely point out, others do not share my wiew. Thing is, nobody seems to be able to come up with credible explanations to the details involved when they use either a killer unknown to Stride or Jack in the role of the villain.
When all the pieces fall in place, Ben, we need to see the relevance of that!

It proves not that we are correct - but it does encourage us to believe that we are on the right track. Similarly, when we have a theory, but cannot explain all the details involved in a case without having to reinterpret what the witnesses involved tell us, then we are on loose ground. The same applies for a reasoning that people would prioritize holding on to a small pack of cachous instead of fending off a fall.
Just as I cannot swear that you are wrong in the first case, I cannot do so in this case either. But I CAN swear that a first-hand witness should be awarded more credibility than any interpretation going diametrically against it 121 years later, just as I CAN swear that the by far most normal reaction is to choose a fended-off fall over a pack of sweetmeats.

And the bottom line is very much related to these things!! If you want an unaquainted killer (or Jack) in Dutfields Yard, then time and time again, you need to settle for the less credible and witness-wise unsubstantiated interpretations of things.
...and, once again, if you dont agree with this - be my guest!

"Did Schwartz really register and surprise at the woman not screaming more loudly? I can't recall that detail, off hand."

Schwartz only said that she cried out three times, "but not very loud". Therefore, we can feel certain that he was of the belief that she could have cried out louder if she had wanted to.
It stuck in his mind, Ben. It was something he had not expected.
If you think that this is interpreting things too generously, and I mean it: feel free!

It is a complex thing to try and build a credible scenario from a number of details, Ben. Normally, there will be anomalies and difficulties as you go along, and quite often a small detail that swears against a more or less complete theory will force you to break it all up and start over again. Of this, you will be aware, I know.

This is where the Stride killing is something of a gem, since when we use the aquaintance scenario and accept that Stride was slain by someone she knew and trusted, ALL details are awarded significance. All of them. No exceptions.
They work together, actually reinforcing each other.
They snap in place one by one, all of them tally with the witness reports and - much importantly - NONE of them portray anything but trivial things, so often appearing in domestic cases.

It is nothing short of fantastic how we can see what would have happened in Berner Street on that night in so much detail. We can follow Stride and her respectable fellow (what a bacon-maker he would be!) through the streets, leaving the Bricklayers arms, being mocked by Best and Gardner and not caring too much about it, instead staying together, walking close together, kissing, chatting...
After that, the row outside the yard, him trying to make her come along with him, her resisting, everything going down EXACTLY as Schwartz tells us, their efforts to stay secluded as they had their disagreement, keeping the voices low, moving into the relative privacy of the yard. Even in the last moment of her life, she did not feel at risk, taking her cachous out, deciding to return to the street without him.
Then, the sudden strike from behind, the choking, the cutting as she fell, fraying the scarf, the sequence of events keeping her silent, prevented from any chance of screaming by the tightly pulled scarf.

She falls to the ground, and he bends over her, probably terrified by what he has just done. He checks her neck to see how bad it is, gets fresh blood on his fingers, knows she is cut - and so he reaches out for her right hand and feels for her pulse. Since he is not a medical man, he does not know that you should use your fingers and not your thumb when doing so, a very common mistake to make - and a very telling thing to find. And so he sets off a set of oblong clots of fresh blood on the back of her hand with his fingers, whereas he bloodies the inside of her wrist with his thumb, fumbling for her pulse. And afterwards, when Diemschutz and Kozebrodsky sees the doctor lifting that right hand in the sparse light afforded by a policemans lantern, they believe that she is holding grapes in that hand, for the simple reason that red grapes and bloody imprints of fingertips are of the same size and shape.

This is how the story can be told. I sincerely believe that it is also how it SHOULD be told. This is what happened, I think, detail by detail.

Don´t tell me that it does not all add up. It does.
And don´t tell me that there are OTHER full, alternative scenarios explaining all the bits and pieces, one by one. There is not, at least not so far.
If and when they arrive, I will listen with the greatest of interest. If they offer as good explanations as the aquiantance scenario does, I will throw in a good deal of amazement too!

Once again, Ben - I am not urging you to step over to my side. You make your calls, and I make mine. I just think that we have a beautifully simple case on our hands, and I think the story has been begging to be told for 121 years!

The best,
Fisherman

[ghoulstonstreet]

Not 1 of the Canonical 5?

A recently jilted lover is a far better suspect for this murder than a post mortem mutilator Tom...based on the actual evidence of course.

Motive.......a single slit of a throat does not fit with Jack the Rippers assumed motives, in that, he distinguishes himself by whats done after the murder...not by merely killing.

Someone wanted Liz dead and killed her. Thats the whole story, thats all of the evidence....and a jilted lover beats a ripping stranger anytime as a suspect based only on that simple principle.

At least the premise on which I stand has some logic attached....a serial mutilator post mortem of women deciding as he hears a cart approach to just cut once and only kill then wait for a chance to slip out the gates.....now thats fantasy.

Cheers Tom


edited to add.....you said a "wealth" of information exonerates Kidney.....what exactly do you feel is this evidence? The fact they interviewed him and didnt arrest him?

I'm new here and since this thread is at the top of the heap I've decided to start reading it. I am aware of the Schwartz/Lipski (comment) incident in that I realize a couple men saw Liz Stride with someone and noted it etc. I have read a couple different accounts of this and they were really a bit confusing. Would someone care to very simply describe the scenario with precision?
And, mostly, I'm getting the impression Michael, that some of you are thinking this killing is not to be attributed to the Ripper?