Schwartz and Brown

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Doesn't it?

Are you sure?"

I am sure, Ben. And when you catch up on the three words "in this instance" you will see why - I am speaking only of the throwing of Liz to the ground.
Furthermore, if you read my posts, you will see that I write that I see the possibility of BS man having cried "Lizzie" as an interesting one, whereas I full well know that Schwartz said that he called out "Lipski".

I am not saying that you may not throw forward any suggestion you like. I am, though, saying that Schwartz´s testimony is very adamant on BS man having tried to pull Liz out into the street - thus AWAY from the yard and not into it.
This may be right and it may be wrong. But the better guess will always be that the former applies - given that it was what Schwartz said.

"The street was in the opposite direction to the "footway", which means that if he first dragged her into the street, he'd need to throw her in the opposite direction from the street in order for her to end up on the footway. That doesn't make sense, which is why I've suggested that he always intended to take her in the direction of the yard."

Once again, Ben, listen to what Schwartz actually SAID! He said that BS man TRIED TO pull Liz into the street. That does NOT in ANY way confirm your apparent wiew that he succeeded to do so!
If a report says that a man "tried to kick a door in" - does that tell us that he kicked the door in? No, it does not - it tells us that he kicked the door - but as it is only stated that he tried to kick it in, we are left with the reasonable conclusion that he failed.
Same thing with BS man, in all probability - he would have grabbed Stride and TRIED to pull her into the street BUT FAILED. It would seem she resisted. And therefore, when BS man instead spun her round to some unknown extent and threw her down (alternatively, she fell after having broken loose herself), he would most probably have done so while Stride was still on the pavement or in the gateway. Therefore there is no need to believe that he threw Stride in the exact opposite direction. Not that I see such a thing as very unlikely, though - If you drag somebody towards yourself in an effort to bring that somebody along, and suddenly are infuriated by that somebody´s refusal to comply, frustration may bring you to the decision of throwing him/her to the ground. And if so, the only direction in which you CANNOT throw them down, is the direction you were originally trying to move them in - towards yourself!

Incidentally, remarks like "Apologies if I've confused you with some other theorist" are something I hope you will refrain from fortwith. I think we can both see where this is going if such things occur. You have also already written what you would say if you were to be sarcastic about me, using very derogatory wordings, and I hope you will not travel any further along that track.

Back to business:
"Appropriate screaming volume is a concept that must remain alien to me, I'm afraid"

That´s just fine, Ben, as long as you realize that when people say that someone who cries out do so in a not very loud voice, they also venture an unvoiced opinion that the one who cried out could probably have done so in a louder voice.
If this takes any further explaining to you, I hope somebody else will do it. I won´t, for obvious reasons - this was the third time.

"Well you go ahead and think that, if that reflects your feelings on the subject."

It does, Ben. And what´s more, it reflects the feelings of nigh on a hundred per cent of the population too.
Your point, though, rests nicely on the fact that I cannot prove this. I can only say that it is a wiew of which I am certain, and then you can step in and say that:

A/ There is no need to listen to me at all, since I am no expert on the area

and

B/ That you think that the exact opposite applies - only a crackpot would hold my belief.

This would tally extermely well with the discussions I have been having with you before, so my suggestion is that we leave this topic exactly where it is, and let everybody else decide for themselves whether it is more credible that Schwartz, saying that Stride cried out three times but not very loud, thought that Stride had lowered her voice or that he believed that the comparatively low voice owed to a probable impediment on her behalf. Agreed?

As for the rest of the points, I would be happy to discuss it further, should you have any further points to raise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"the victim had suffered no recent external injuries,except some small bruising around the shoulders,which ,in the opinion of the docters,had been caused while attacked inside the yard."

I actually think that Blackwell opened up for the possibility that these bruises may have come about before the Berner Street incident, Harry. But I agree that the suggestion that they came about there and then seems a logical one.

"Now if Stride had been thrown to the ground by BS,the ground being of stone or concrete,I would speculate,and have good grounds for doing so,that she would have received some grazing or bruising that would have been visible to the doctors who later examined her body.There was none."

...and so we must assume that the fall was not a very hard one, or that she did not bruise easily, or that some part of her clothing ended up between the palm of her hand and the ground as she fended the fall off, or that ... The possibilities are endless, Harry, and much as we would have wanted some physical confirmation of that fall, we must realize that not all falls are the same. No two falls are, actually.

"Well we see in wrestling and some other sports that it is possible to lift a person off their feet and throw them,so accepting your proposal that I should believe ,without question,what the witness Schwartz said,then that is what BS did."

Whoaa, Harry! Hold your horses! Who says that BS man did lift Stride into the air before throwing her down, Catch-as-catch-can-style? I know that Schwartz never said such a thing, at least.
By the way, speaking about catch-as-catch-can wrestling, although it is playing for the gallery, and although these guys land on the floor of the ring instead of landing on a street pavement - how many bruises do you see on their bodies? Are they all black and blue?
It´s just a reflection, Harry, and not a very good comparison, I know. But it´s food for thought, none the less.

"whatever happened ouside the yard was of a minor nature,and that her fall was by other than a violent assault."

Now, THERE`S a point we can agree on, Harry; I think it quite, quite credible that there was very little violence involved. It may well be that it was all about dragging Stride along with him, away from the perceived soliciting and back home - or something along those lines. We know that Schwartz thought BS man a violent character, but we equally know that he was afraid. In such a position, you may well interpret what you see as signs of violence and a cruel mindset, although it could have been something else. And that in itself may well contribute to a better understanding both of the events as a whole and of why Stride showed no evidence of having been thrown viciously to the ground.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I am, though, saying that Schwartz´s testimony is very adamant on BS man having tried to pull Liz out into the street - thus AWAY from the yard and not into it.

He is no more "adamant" about that detail than he was about Schwartz saying "Lipski", and not "Lizzie". And yet you find the "Lizzie" proposal "interesting". What you're doing is using your own creative interpretation of Schwartz's observation, but not allowing other posters their own. If you're arguing the Lizzie angle then you're not really on firm ground to urge us to "listen to what Schwartz actually SAID!" since you would be changing what he said in order to make sense of his his observations, and that is precisely what I'm doing with the pushing-pulling detail. That's the only major objection I have at the moment. Fundamentally, if you're allowed to argue that "Yes, he said X but what he actually saw was Y", then so is everyone else.

No, it does not - it tells us that he kicked the door - but as it is only stated that he tried to kick it in, we are left with the reasonable conclusion that he failed.

But then he "turned her around" and threw her in the opposite direction. That doesn't make a great deal of sense as an observation. It would make sense if he grabbed hold of Stride, she started to march off in the direction of the streets with him still clinging to her (which could easily look like him dragging her towards the streets*), and he thrust her back in his intended direction - towards the yard. If we go with your explanation, that BS failed completely in his efforts to budge her towards the streets, then the restriction of movement renders the whole observation even more ambiguous.

Notice, for example, how the observation changes dramatically in the Star account (which you're relying on, to some extent, with its references to "respectability" and so on) which has the BS man pushing Stride towards the passage.

Incidentally, remarks like "Apologies if I've confused you with some other theorist" are something I hope you will refrain from fortwith. I think we can both see where this is going if such things occur.

Sorry, if I've offended you, Fish, but I was entertaining genuine concern that I'd mixed you up with someone else, which is also the opposite of sarcasm. What you considered "derogatory wordings" was only my jesting attempt to illustrate the difference between a sarcastic response and a genuine one. I can assure you I meant nothing untoward by it.

That´s just fine, Ben, as long as you realize that when people say that someone who cries out do so in a not very loud voice, they also venture an unvoiced opinion that the one who cried out could probably have done so in a louder voice.

That would be reasonable, certainly. What's less reasonable is the mentality that asserts that a woman who is in the process of being physically attacked would ensure that the volume of her screams were appropriate for the gravity of the situation. Full pelt shrieking for strangers, but a few half-arsed bleats for abusive boyfriends says the rule-book.

so my suggestion is that we leave this topic exactly where it is... Agreed?

An excellent suggestion, and I'm full agreement, of course. I should point out, though, that I had no intention of calling you a crackpot or encouraging other posters to ignore you.

All the best,
Ben

*It's like stage-combat lessons for the theatre. The strangle "victim" would push the other actor's hands towards his neck, while the strangler would attempt to pull away, thus creating the illusion that the reverse is taking place.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"He is no more "adamant" about that detail than he was about Schwartz saying "Lipski", and not "Lizzie"."

This reasoning of yours is intellectually unsound, Ben. I will show you why - to little avail, probably, but still.

When we are dealing with the pulling towards the street, we are dealing with absolute certainties, more or less. We can imagine a cross, painted in the middle of the pavement, right outside the middle of the gateway, with its four arms stretching
A/Into the yard
B/ Along the northern part of the pavement, as seen from the middle of the cross
C/Into the street
D/Along the southern side of the pavement, as seen from the cross

We know that Schwartz said that BS man tried to pull Liz into the street, meaning that he was pulling - if we use the cross model - in the exact opposite direction than the one you are suggesting. This means that he was pulling in a 180 degree angle to your suggestion, more or less.
That means that you have chosen to suggest the solution lying furthest away from the one Schwartz spoke of.

When we speak about the difference between the expression Lipski and Lizzie, we cannot talk about angles. But it is obvious from the outset that the two are very much alike, meaning that I have in no way thrown forward even nearly as differing a suggestion to that of Schwartz as you have.
Moreover, Schwartz did not speak a word of English, and that of course means that he may never even have heard the word Lizzie before, and therefore it stands to reason that he may well have misheard one expression that was totally unknown (and thus impossible to recognize) for a very closely lying other expression that WAS known to him - and bandied about a lot, obviously.

In conclusion, the suggestion you throw forward tallies extremely badly with Schwartz statement, whereas my suggestion does not tally exactly, but comes very close.

"Fundamentally, if you're allowed to argue that "Yes, he said X but what he actually saw was Y", then so is everyone else."

Ah, but THAT is something totally different, Ben - I am not disallowing anybody to throw forward any argument at all. This, however, does not mean that I at the same time should recognize an argument of poor quality as being as viable as an argument of good quality. And the longer away from Schwartz we stray, the lower the quality of the argument becomes, in particular when we are dealing with more absolute things like directions and such.

I am not opposed, Ben to the idea of Schwartz having heard "Lipski" instead of "Lizzie". It may well have been that way, and the best bet would be that it holds true. But the chances of it having been misheard are infinitely much larger than the chances of Schwartz having got his directions on the altercation upside down. We are dealing with one very minor change versus one total turnaround, and most people will se the relevance of this.

"But then he "turned her around" and threw her in the opposite direction."

Right, Ben, since you keep throwing this potential total fallacy forward, let´s have your substantiation for it. Where does it say that she was thrown in the opposite direction? Why could she not have been thrown to the side? Let´s get that sorted out before we proceed on this particular issue!

"Notice, for example, how the observation changes dramatically in the Star account (which you're relying on, to some extent, with its references to "respectability" and so on) which has the BS man pushing Stride towards the passage."

To begin with, I think we both should choose the police report over the Star for pretty obvious reasons. That is not to say that we should not take an interest in the Stars report too. But on the issue at hand, I think we must keep in mind that BOTH the police report and the Star may be saying that BS man shoved Stride towards the yard - for if he first tried to pull her into the street and then gave up on it and threw her in the opposite direction (or, once again, if she pulled away from him and broke loose), then in towards the yard she would go! So there is no contradiction in it at all, as far as I can see, it´s just that the pulling part is omitted on behalf of the paper.


"That would be reasonable, certainly. What's less reasonable is the mentality that asserts that a woman who is in the process of being physically attacked would ensure that the volume of her screams were appropriate for the gravity of the situation."

Oh, I think we can agree that it is much more credible that a woman he feared for her life would cry out at the top of her voice, than a woman who is just annoyed by some slight maltreating from an aquaintance. It´s simple sense. I don´t see any need for an absolute listing of decibel power to go along with every occasion, as long as we understand that this applies in a very general sense.

The bottom line i all of this is - and I would like a confirmation from you that you agree about it, if you can see your way through to such a thing - that when we can find a scenario that works to explain a scenario, we stand a better chance of having gotten things right if our scenario actually matches with and confirms the evidence and witness testimony as closely as possible. When we need to reinterpret and discard parts of that evidence and that testimony, we generally have a weaker case.
Would you not agree, Ben?

"I had no intention of calling you a crackpot or encouraging other posters to ignore you."

You have no idea how that warms my heart, Ben ...

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Since I wrote:

"The bottom line i all of this is - and I would like a confirmation from you that you agree about it, if you can see your way through to such a thing - that when we can find a scenario that works to explain a scenario, we stand a better chance of having gotten things right if our scenario actually matches with and confirms the evidence and witness testimony as closely as possible. When we need to reinterpret and discard parts of that evidence and that testimony, we generally have a weaker case.
Would you not agree, Ben?"

... a slight rephrasing is of the essence:

The bottom line in all of this is - and I would like a confirmation from you that you agree about it, if you can see your way through to such a thing - that when we can find a scenario that works to explain the details of a crime, we stand a better chance of having gotten things right if our scenario actually matches with and confirms the evidence and witness testimony as closely as possible. When we need to reinterpret and discard parts of that evidence and that testimony, we generally have a weaker case.
Would you not agree, Ben?"

There!

the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Why do you always do this to me, Fisherman?

Why do you always make the first suggestion to “leave this topic exactly where it is” when you have no intention of embracing it yourself? What you really mean is let’s agree that you don’t respond to my latest long post, and that isn’t going to work, for obvious reasons.

"He is no more "adamant" about that detail than he was about Schwartz saying "Lipski", and not "Lizzie"."

This reasoning of yours is intellectually unsound, Ben. I will show you why - to little avail, probably, but still.”

That one didn’t require any “reasoning”, intellectual or otherwise, because it was a statement of fact. Schwartz was no more “adamant” about the movements of BS than he was about the utterance of “Lipski” as opposed to “Lizzie”. You criticized my argument because you say it ran contrary to what Schwartz “actually said”, despite the fact that the theory you’ve woven around the BS encounter also contradicts his words. So whatever criticisms you may have of my version events, you can’t resort to the “Ah, but that’s not what Schwartz said” without being guilty of double standards.

We don’t need to draw any pedantic imaginary crosses on the pavement to accept that the movement of Stride heading towards the street with BS clinging to her arm could easily look like BS man was attempting to pull her in that direction, and that it would also account for the “turning her around”. Not much point turning someone around if the plan was to throw her to the floor, unless he was turning her in the direction he wanted her to head in, i.e. away from the streets and towards the darkness of the yard. That’s my interpretation of the evidence, which, if taken at face value, would have looked decidedly odd and illogical.

You can call it outrageous if you want. I couldn’t disagree more strongly, and valiant though your efforts have been, your objections to my suggestion have not been remotely convincing. I do not, incidentally, find the “Lizzie” hypothesis particularly sound. The rather distinctive and abrasive “p” and “k” sounds would tend to reduce the chances of being confounded with “Lizzie”. A slurred Lipski could easily sound like Lizzie, but it doesn’t work so well the other way round because you’d have to imagine that you heard a “psk” sound when there wasn’t one.

“This, however, does not mean that I at the same time recognize an argument of poor quality as being as viable as an argument of good quality.”

With sincere respect, I find that a rather vacuous sentiment, Fisherman. Good arguments are better than bad ones. Yes, that does seem to follow, and that’s why I’m arguing my case and you’re arguing yours. I think my argument’s good and that yours in unconvincing. No offense. I certainly did not claim that Schwartz got his “directions upside down". My explanation is an effort to make sense of what would otherwise seem an illogical sequence of events, and I think it achieves that objective rather well. Besides which, it tallies well with the subsequent Star account which had the BS man pushing her into the passage. Considering that the body was found in a darkened yard, it doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to deduce that he’d got her where he wanted her.

“Right, Ben, since you keep throwing this potential total fallacy forward, let´s have your substantiation for it. Where does it say that she was thrown in the opposite direction?”

Anyone heading into the street from the entrance of Dutfields Yard would have been heading east. If they wanted to go back to the pavement outside Dutfields Yard they would have been heading west. East being the opposite of west. And don’t use patience-testing exaggerated terminology like “potential total fallacy”, especially when it’s nothing of the sort.

“So there is no contradiction in it at all, as far as I can see, it´s just that the pulling part is omitted on behalf of the paper.”

Why would they omit such a detail? Why include the detail of him forcing her into the passage despite knowing full well that he initially intended to take her in the opposite direction?

“Oh, I think we can agree that it is much more credible that a woman he fearedfor her life would cry out at the top of her voice, than a woman who is just annoyed by some slight maltreating from an aquaintance.”

Annoyed by some slight maltreating? He wasn’t throwing popcorn at her, Fisherman. This was a physical attack on a defenseless woman. If one of my nearest and dearest tried any such behaviour on me, I’d make a serious din, and I can confidently say the same of most women I know. On the other hand, any number of factors could prompt a women NOT to scream her very loudest when attacked. Maybe she was too busy fending off her attacker or falling over. Maybe she didn’t have a very loud scream etc etc. The idea that she would have screamed louder had the man been a stranger is on shaky theoretical ground, besides being far too bold an assumption.

When we need to reinterpret and discard parts of that evidence and that testimony, we generally have a weaker case. Would you not agree, Ben?

Cheerfully, but I've been given no compelling reason to accept that my suggested version of events deviates from the evidence, in terms of our interpretation of it, any more than yours does.

“You have no idea how that warms my heart, Ben ...”

And a good way to ensure the continuation of a friendly exchange is to avoid making suggestions to leave the topic as it stands when you don’t mean it!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"Why do you always make the first suggestion to “leave this topic exactly where it is” when you have no intention of embracing it yourself?"

I feel genuinely sorry for you, Ben, since I am such a dissapointment to you and give you such a hard time. But that´s life, I´m afraid. The good thing about this thread however, is that you were the one who joined it very much later than I did, so I hope I stand a fair chance of not being called a crazy stalker again. Not that I take it for granted in any fashion, though.

More specifically, on the bit about voice volume, I suggested that we let it be, and you said "yes, let´s" - and did the exact opposite yourself. But I´ll try and stay away from accusations and such, and stay on topic.

I will leave the matters where I have already given up all hope of some understanding on your behalf.

My post:

"“Right, Ben, since you keep throwing this potential total fallacy forward, let´s have your substantiation for it. Where does it say that she was thrown in the opposite direction?”

Your answer:

"Anyone heading into the street from the entrance of Dutfields Yard would have been heading east. If they wanted to go back to the pavement outside Dutfields Yard they would have been heading west. East being the opposite of west. And don’t use patience-testing exaggerated terminology like “potential total fallacy”, especially when it’s nothing of the sort."

East and west and such things aside, Ben, you are sidestepping my argument here. What I said was that the evidence points very clearly to BS man and Stride still standing on the pavement or in the gateway as he threw her down. You suggested the misconception that he must have been out in the street as he did so, and I pointed out that this would not have been the case. And since this was not the case, there would have been the possibility to throw her down
A/ in the opposite direction, that is towards the yard
B/ to his right, that is to say onto the pavement running north from the yard
and
C/ to his left, meaning that she would end up on the pavement running south from the yard.

The fallacy of yours came about as a result of your missing the detail that "tried to pull" does not equate "succeeded to pull". I pointed it out - and had, as usual, nothing for it. No "Oh, I missed that", no "You are right, there are other possibilities", no "Ah - I misread it". Makes sense.

"Why would they omit such a detail?"

Wrong question. Why did the police report include it? THAT is the more interesting one.

"Annoyed by some slight maltreating? He wasn’t throwing popcorn at her, Fisherman. This was a physical attack on a defenseless woman. If one of my nearest and dearest tried any such behaviour on me, I’d make a serious din, and I can confidently say the same of most women I know."

"Such behavior", Ben? And how EXACTLY did that behavior look? Did he hit her? Did he rough her up, and throw her to the ground as hard as he could? Did he simply grab her by the wrist and try to drag her along? Was her fall the result of him throwing her or her breaking loose?

Surely you realize that all these questions are very urgent to find an answer to before we start speaking of the "behavior" as something we have been able to assess correctly. For all we know, the altercation may not have exceeded popcorn-throwing by much, Ben!

"The idea that she would have screamed louder had the man been a stranger is on shaky theoretical ground, besides being far too bold an assumption."

Actually, no - it is a very reasonable suggestion. Or do you fail to see the logic in an "unfortunate" screaming louder when attacked by a stranger during the Ripper scare, then when someone she knows very well grabs her and tries to drag her with him? I am not speaking of universal rules, Ben - but I am speaking of simple, useful, everyday logic.

My words:

"When we need to reinterpret and discard parts of that evidence and that testimony, we generally have a weaker case. Would you not agree, Ben?"

Yours:

"Cheerfully, but I've been given no compelling reason to accept that my suggested version of events deviates from the evidence, in terms of our interpretation of it, any more than yours does."

No? Schwartz says he tried to pull her into the street.
I say he tried to pull her into the street.
You say he tried to push her in the opposite direction.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

You agree that normally, one tries to fend a fall off instead of holding on to things in your hand.
I say that Stride did not hold the cachous in her hand until in the yard - and that she only held on to them because she was choked and cut, making her clench her hand.
You say that she had them from the outset, and that she was flung to the ground, still holding on to them, got up on her feet, still held on to them, was pushed inside the yard by BS man, still not letting go of the cachous, and was once again brought down, still holding on to the cachous.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

I say that Schwartz would have been of the opinion that Stride kept her voice low, since that detail made him remark on it specially at the police station.
You say that he may as well have thought that she had an impediment that hindered her to cry out any louder.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

I see no further use in exchanging with you on this, Ben - or on any other matter, as long as your attitude does not change. You weigh things on corrupt scales, and it would seem your efforts are all directed to deny whatever and whoever does not agree with you. I have seen it far too many times before to be in any sense surprised - and still it makes me sad. It´s a potentially good force lost to tragic narcissism.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

On the issue of what BSM was supposedly trying to do when he encounters Liz...cause sometimes you 2 need an arbitrator....the evidence as given suggests that the Broadshouldered Man was trying to take Liz away from that gate and the sidewalk, into the street...perhaps as the chicken does, to cross it.

Liz resists, and falls. No-one shoves her, no-one "threw" her anywhere. By the encounters description the most probable answer for why she fell is that she wrenched herself free at the cost of her own balance,.... backwards. Onto her derriere.

If she exclaims anything.... other than Help or Police, she isnt in mortal fear of the man,......that doesnt mean she shouldnt be, just that she likely wasnt.

Who does yell though is the man she was grabbed by, at a man watching his transgression and perhaps at a comrade behind him...... smoking a pipe.

Heres a thought....if someone came to see Liz where we know she was at around 12:45am, someone she knew and someone not of the club....someone who thought she might be meeting a club member and took along a pal in case the Jews of the club get involved while he is taking Liz away from there....that might explain Pipeman and BSM's call to him to remove "Lipski".

Best regards

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Besides being the first character assassination to have emerged from this otherwise courteous exchange, your characterization of me as a narcissist is also the height of hypocrisy, especially in light of remarks akin to "Don´t tell me that it does not all add up. It does" Even when faced with that sort of boastful rhetoric, I restrain the extent of my disapproval to an innocous "woah!" for the sake of retaining the peace. You know full well that my contributions to this thread have been perfectly civil. My only transgression, in your eyes, was to disagree with your position and persist in that disagreement.

You suggested the misconception that he must have been out in the street as he did so, and I pointed out that this would not have been the case.

But if neither of them ever made it into the street during the kerfuffle, there is even more ambiguity here, and by extension, even more incentive to interpret Schwartz's evidence in order that it can be made better sense of. Indeed, it would appear that there is more fuel than ever for the speculation that BS man never intended to take her into the street (for what possible reason anyway?) and always planned to entice her towards the yard.

no "Ah - I misread it".

I didn't misread it. I just told you. If they never made it into the streets, and the scuffle was more restricted, there is even more room (so to speak!) for acceptable interpretations. Again, if taken at face value, Schwartz's account wouldn't make much sense, unlike the Star version which had BS pushing her towards the passage. Makes sense really, considering that she ended up murdered in that same passage. I don't know quite what your obsession is with forcing imaginary concessions out of me, but I didn't get one from you on the Best/Gardner issue.

Wrong question. Why did the police report include it?

Because it had immediate revelance to the investigation, and the police were duty-bound to include it if that is what Schwartz said. In the Star's version, the BS man simply attempted to push her into the passage.

"Such behavior", Ben? And how EXACTLY did that behavior look?

Like a physical assault on a domestic women in a darkened street in a location in which a serial killer was currently active. Can't see Stride brushing such an episode aside as a casual nuisance somehow, even if it was her mildly autistic brother. It was enough to perturb one (possibly two) grown men into fleeing the scene with some urgency at any rate.

Or do you fail to see the logic in an "unfortunate" screaming louder when attacked by a stranger during the Ripper scare, then when someone she knows very well grabs her and tries to drag her with him?

I fail to see how you can possibly invest your Female Screamology rule book with the type of undeserved authority that you currently accord it. There are obvious factors that could easily prevent a petrified woman from screaming at the top of her lungs, and they range from intoxication, a precoccupation with fending off her attacker, a preoccupation with falling over to the obvious - not having a very loud scream. Equally, the idea that the female victims of physical assault should moderate the volume of their screams to ensure that they are attacker-specific is just nonsensical. I've heard of personalized ring tones, but scream tones?

Schwartz says he tried to pull her into the street.
I say he tried to pull her into the street.
You say he tried to push her in the opposite direction.

Oh, so a bit like:

Schwartz claimed BS said "Lipski".
I say BS said "Lipski".
You say BS said "Lizzie".

Similar sort of thing really.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

Well, no, I'd say we're about even so far if that little experiment is anything to go on.

You agree that normally, one tries to fend a fall off instead of holding on to things in your hand.

No, I said that normally, one tries to fend off a fall. An exception would be if the "faller" has something valuable in his or her hands. In which case, the faller can both retain the item and break the fall at the same time.

I say that Stride did not hold the cachous in her hand until in the yard - and that she only held on to them because she was choked and cut, making her clench her hand.

I say no, that doesn't sound very convincing at all; the idea of getting out your sweets in the aftermath of a physical assault. I say she had them in her hands as BS approached, and they they remained in her fists during the ensuing scuffle that resulted in her death.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

Still no.

I say that Schwartz would have been of the opinion that Stride kept her voice low, since that detail made him remark on it specially at the police station.

I say gosh, how illogical. Keeping her voice low? To avoid waking the neighbours while she gets knocked around?

You say that he may as well have thought that she had an impediment that hindered her to cry out any louder.

I never claimed any such thing at any point.

No compelling reason to think I am closer to the evidence?

I said no.

I see no further use in exchanging with you on this, Ben - or on any other matter

Promises, promises...

[Roy Corduroy]

...the idea that the female victims of physical assault should moderate the volume of their screams to ensure that they are attacker-specific is just nonsensical.

Thank you, Ben.

Roy

[Ben]

No worries, Roy!

Thought I was the lone voice (screamed to a situation-specific mew) on that one.

[perrymason]

I happen to agree with Fisherman that there are different vocalizations made dependent on the state of surprise, shock or fear.

Its the reason most of the "oh-murder" cries in the area went unheeded by locals in bed, .....the tonality, emphasis and volume are the essential differentiators. And they depend on the factors I first mentioned.

The only vocalizations Liz made have made might be "oomph"....as she hit the bricks with her butt. She doesnt call for help or loudly protest in anyones version of events, and we have more trustworthy testimony by neighbors for that sort of issue.

Best regards chaps.

[lynn cates]

experiment

Hello Ben and Roy. Here's an experiment you might try. Sneak up on a friend and place your hand on her shoulder. What's the result? Maybe a start and a squeak.

Now try the same but with something sharp, and with point against flesh.

See the difference?

The best.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening,

"threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly."

Nothing about this indicates whether she knew the man or not.

Roy

[harry]

Fisherman,
Phillips stated that he(Philips)made a written record at the Post Mortem,and Blackwell did the dissecting.It was testimony by Phillips at the inquest,that no recent external injuries were visible.Blackwell concurred with what Phillips said.I would presume that both docters had,before dissecting began,examined the body for recent external markings,and found none.
I would have thought that to be thrown ,one would have to be lifted off their feet ,and if thrown violently,some damage would be done.So you can,by your own remarks,see why I object to that kind of testimony.Certainly Schwartz saw something.He saw a woman fall,but did he see the way she fell,or the position she landed,or even,in detail,why she fell.Was the word threw,something suggested to him?It is only that word that suggests violence on the part of BS.The rest can be explained as of an innocent nature,some minor disagreement perhaps,that could have been initiated by Stride?.
Was He pulling her or was she pulling him?With things happening so quickly,how long did it take to register with Schwartz that something out of the ordinary was taking place.How much of the initial action did he miss.?These are legitimate questions that cannot be answered,but they should be bourne in mind.