Schwartz and Brown

[harry]

What was the relative position of Stride and BS man on meeting.We do not know as Schwartz didn't say,but as they are talking,one can accept that they were face to face.Whether she had her back to the yard at that time or was facing BS at right angle to the yard,might have revelance of whether she was appeared to be dragged to the yard or away from it.Schwartz by his testimony was behind BS,how far is not clear,and initial events to some extent would have been shielded both by the bulk of BS and the quality of lighting at the yard entrance..It seems it was after the talking had ceased,that she fell or was twisted to the ground,and only then had Schwartz drawn level.I think too much is taken for granted.There is to me,an even chance that Stride herself initiated events.To make any rational assumption on the events one would have to know how far away Schwartz was.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This all sounds like a case of a roughing up scene, If it is a case of Schwaltz, and pipe man running away from the scene, I would say BS was not the type of character you messed with, and the witnesses simply scarpered, when BS shouted out.
I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailiant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat.
I do not see a mystery at all, the cachous, were in her hand before the assault , and remain fixed between the thumb and finger thereafter.
Was he JTR, i would say Yes.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

True enough, Harry; we cannot possibly know for certain how it happened.

It all boils down to a case of probabilities, thus. And that tells us that "he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway".

So, Stride was standing "in the gateway". In all probability, that means that BS man was the one closest to the street - otherwise, we need to accept that he took a right turn and walked in behind her, as she was standing in the gateway.
After this, "The man tried to pull the woman into the street". Once again, the reasonable position he was doing his pulling from, is one where he stands between the street and Stride. The pulling will be performed with his back to the street, generally speaking.
Next up, "he turned her round and threw her down on the footway". This is a bit trickier - we cannot know for certain in which direction he threw her. The best bet would perhaps be that he threw her in the direction of the yard, but it equally applies that he may have thrown her to the left or the right. It is less credible to believe that she would have ended up between BS man and the street, since the footway was not very broad. It can, perhaps, not be ruled out totally though.

As for the main question you raise, though, "whether she was appeared to be dragged to the yard or away from it", I think that the assertion that BS man tried to pull Stride "into the street" leaves us with no doubt - she was dragged away from the yard from the outset.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I still believe that Schwartz comments cannot be taken literally because of the conditions I mentioned.I think that if she was actually in the gateway she would not have been clearly visible to Schartz untill she moved.So let me put this situation.Stride is in the gateway and as BS draws abreast she steps into his path.There is a conversation in which she makes a proposition.He is not interested and attempts to move on.She grabs at him,and either slips and falls,or is grasped by him to move her out of the way,and then twists and falls.Schwartz sees no further activity because he is moving away.In remembering the following day,he either misinterprets what he saw,or accepts the idea of an assault suggested by the interviewing officer.
There is no probability of anything,only possibility.Regards
Harry.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"In remembering the following day,he either misinterprets what he saw,or accepts the idea of an assault suggested by the interviewing officer."

It could be, Harry - but that does not change the fact that generally when a witness says "left", then left it was, and when "right" is stated, the same thing applies.

Therefore, when you write "There is no probability of anything" I must beg to disagree. There is a POSSIBILITY that Schwartz got it wrong, yes; but the PROBABILITY is, was and remains that he did NOT do so.

All in all, I much welcome propositions like yours, though, with a wry smile on my lips. The reason being that it all goes very well to help me make my point - whenever somebody tries to pin the Stride murder on Jack or an assailant that was unknown to Stride, they have to look for other interpretations of the recorded events than the obvious ones: Stride is thrown towards the yard instead of towards the street, the events as we know them are not the result of a truthful session at the police station but instead something the police has forced down the witnesses throats, the low voice in which she cried out came about as a result of Stride not being able to cry out in a louder voice etcetera. We see this mechanism in work over and over again.
I am not speaking of just you, Harry, but of a number of posters who seemingly very much dislike my suggestion, without pointing out where I would be logically mistaken or where "my" chain of events would break.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

conversion

Hello Richard. Your dictum:

"I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat."

would work fine IF her body were 180 degrees opposite. It was not.

You see, I was a nice, normal C5 chap. My habit was and is to keep reading the coroner's reports, and try a forensic reconstruction of each. After doing Liz for the umpteenth time, it hit me like a cold slap in the face that Liz was EXITING the yard. That did not correspond to soliciting Jack and then going to a dark spot.

But couldn't "Jack" pull on her and turn her about? Not at all. The bloody cachous again. Any violent movement--except a quick take down from behind, replete with choking to ensure the involuntary grip--is ruled out.

Needless to say, my conversion was every whit as swift and sure as St. Augustine's.

The best.
LC

[Ben]

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.

That's true, Fisherman, but 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. There's no mutual exclusivity between breaking a fall and retaining the cachous.

That sentence leaves no room for any doubt about which is the reasonable interpretation.

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, with BS pulling her into the street, but then suddenly turning her around and throwing her in the opposite direction. IF BS grabbed her arm, for example, and Stride then attempted to escape in the direction of the streets, it could well appear that he was pulling her in that direction, since he would still have been clinging to her. The fact that he was observed to throw her down away from the direction of the street would suggest to me that he intended to take her in that direction.

"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."

It depends on the perspective. I'd hazard a guess that some of the people who've argued for Stride's inclusion in the canon have done so with the conviction that theirs in the more credible explanation, which is why they stick to their guns and ensure the continuation of the debate. I find that both sides have interesting observations to impact, which is why I remain on the fence.

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!

Thanks. I don't agree with this. 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. Even if it did occur precisely as Schwartz described, I don't think it would intefere with any conclusion that Jack or an unknown attacker may have been responsible.

Therefore, we can feel certain that he was of the belief that she could have cried out louder if she had wanted to.

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.

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

Woah!

And donīt 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

How can you possibly explore other alternatives if you instruct those debating with you not to provide one?

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.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hello Richard. Your dictum:

"I would suggest that after the initial falling of Stride, her assailant heaved her to her feet and forced her into the darkness of the yard, and swiftly cut her throat."

would work fine IF her body were 180 degrees opposite. It was not.

You see, I was a nice, normal C5 chap. My habit was and is to keep reading the coroner's reports, and try a forensic reconstruction of each. After doing Liz for the umpteenth time, it hit me like a cold slap in the face that Liz was EXITING the yard. That did not correspond to soliciting Jack and then going to a dark spot.

But couldn't "Jack" pull on her and turn her about? Not at all. The bloody cachous again. Any violent movement--except a quick take down from behind, replete with choking to ensure the involuntary grip--is ruled out.

Needless to say, my conversion was every whit as swift and sure as St. Augustine's.

The best.
LC

Hi Lynn,

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.

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?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael and Fish,

Here in America, throwing someone to the ground constitutes an assault and is considered a crime. The rationale being that the thrower's intent was to inflict bodily harm on the person being thrown. So this is where I get totally confused. Was this a normal practice in the LVP? A standard greeting or perhaps a show of affection? In addition, we have the BS man issuing an implied threat of violence to Schwartz with his yell of Lipski. Now you have both stated that Liz would only take out the cachous in a situation where she felt no imminent danger. 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. Michael, you have argued constantly that the BS man had to be her killer because of the narrow time frame. Are you now saying that the BS man might have gone off and come back? Because if so, we have now extended that time frame. If I were Liz and saw the BS man coming back my first instinct would be that he intends more harm and I would start moving closer to the club where I could yell for help.

If you want to make a case that the BS man killed Liz, you have to explain the cachous and why she would have felt no threat from him.

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

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

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

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

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,

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

c.d.

[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

[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