Would It Be The Job of the Police Or the Grand Jury to Discredit Schwartz's Testimony

[robhouse]

Some of the arguments put forth here remind me of a scene at the end of Wes Anderson's comedy film "Bottle Rocket", in which the "gang" is robbing a warehouse after Dignan has conducted surveillance on it a couple of times, by watching the comings and goings with binoculars.

He is surprised to find the workers actually in the factory when they are trying to rob it...

Dignan: "What are you guys doing here? You always go to lunch at 1 o'clock..."

Worker: "Not always.."

Dignan: "Yes, always!"

The problem of making assumptions about behavior based on a small data set.

[c.d.]

Some of the arguments put forth here remind me of a scene at the end of Wes Anderson's comedy film "Bottle Rocket", in which the "gang" is robbing a warehouse after Dignan has conducted surveillance on it a couple of times, by watching the comings and goings with binoculars.

He is surprised to find the workers actually in the factory when they are trying to rob it...

Dignan: "What are you guys doing here? You always go to lunch at 1 o'clock..."

Worker: "Not always.."

Dignan: "Yes, always!"

The problem of making assumptions about behavior based on a small data set.

Indeed!

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Precisely

I was merely negating the suggestion that all the victims were strangled first but of course as usual with me you have to make a big issue out of it.

I thought you said that to suggest, "...rendering them unconscious, doesn't stand up to scrutiny".

Did I miss the scrutiny?

[Hunter]

I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss this...

You are correct, Trevor.

[Michael W Richards]

Cutting was this man’s primary motivation, Trev.

Which killer are we talking about Gary, because you cannot make the above case for Liz Strides killer for certain, and you cannot make that case for the 2 murders that precede Strides, as their killer was determined by the senior medical investigator and the coroner to have killed so that he could mutilate the abdomen and take organs from within.

The motivation for the murders is where all the Truth lies....WHY they were killed would tell us who we should be looking for, and as Ive said all along, its not very likely that its one man.

Polly and Annies killers motivation was as described above, by the evidence alone it cannot be said conclusively why Liz Stride was murdered, only that she was not killed by someone driven by "cutting". Kates killer may have been so motivated...maybe Mary too...maybe those murders share a murderer. But it remains possible that Kate was killed for other reasons as was Mary. Particularly Mary...considering the venue and the probability of her killer being known to her.

Best regards

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Lynn. I missed this response to my post.

"Cutting was this man’s primary motivation"

How on earth can we know that? Merely an assumption.

It's quite straightforward. The murderer immobilized his victims by partial strangulation then killed them via near-decapitation. Had his intent been merely to murder these women he could at this point have walked away having achieved his goal. But he didn't. He remained with the bodies in order to inflict a series of sharp force injuries. Thus the strangulation was conducted in order to facilitate the killing, and the killing provided the means by which he was able to cut and stab a passive body.

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Garry. Thanks.

You describe well what happened in Polly and Annie's cases. But my point is that one cannot move from:

"It is the case that X."

to

"Agent A intended that X."

Intentions/motivations are difficult to pin down.

Cheers.
LC

[NotBlamedForNothing]

An interesting thought nevertheless.

From what I understand the Coroner directs the Inquest, the Jury still must hear all evidence available. So, the Coroner will not hear evidence in-camera, as they say today.

In considering such a scenario I can't help thinking that the press would have got hold of the fact that a session was being held without any public or media present.
I'm sure we would have heard about it, if by no other means than criticisms voiced in the papers.

P.S.
He may hear evidence in-camera to decide if it is worthy to bring before the Jury, but clearly what Schwartz had to say clears that hurdle.

So, that is not what occurred on October 4?