|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 725
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:51 am: |       |
G'day glenn,
The Coroner asked P.C. Smith:"When did it last rain before 1 o'clock?"
Smith replied: "To the best of my recollection, it rained very little after 11 o'clock." That's 2 hours.
Ok let's say she bent forward, her killer pulled her scarf very suddenly and threw her onto the ground, slicing the throat from lowest point upward in one quick second. Now what about the Cachous?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 397
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
How are you today?
OK, but as I said: even so, the ground would have been quite muddy, wet and dirty nevertheless. We have descriptions of that.
Your last suggestion could be a plausible one, actually. But the cachous I can never explain! They are a mystery to me, whatever approach we make.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 10:29 am: | |
According to the Mammoth Book, when Best and Gardner saw Liz and her gentleman friend outside the Bricklayers arms at 11 o'clock they were "kissing in the rain". So if their story is correct then it must have been raining at that time. The Bricklayers Arms is I would say about 5 minutes walk from Dutfield's Yard (maybe we could get Monty to get his running shoes on again  ) so if it was raining in the one place I think we can assume it was raining in the other. |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:20 am: | |
Hi All,
Shannon asks:
"Alan, thanks. I was trying to understand why he wasn't at the first day of the inquest since he knew her, and why the body had not been positively identified by then. By reading the paper, I would think he would have gone to the mortuary to confirm it was Liz, and then appeared at the inquest."
In the March 2000 issue of Ripper Notes, Dave Yost and Stewart Evans examined the identification of Stride in some detail. As Stewart explained in the article:
"At a Coroner's inquest proper identification of the deceased is only recognized when it is a proper LEGAL identification of the body, by someone who was related in some way to the person TO the Coroner's officer and a written statement is taken to that effect."
So, much of the confusion over Stride's identity appears to have been caused by a legal technicality. Kidney was only Stride's live-in lover, he was not a relative. As Mrs. Malcolm had viewed the body on September 30, claimed to be the deceased's sister, and ID'd her as someone else, the coroner's court was legally bound to give her identification precedence over Kidney's, and anyone else who was not a relative. It was not until October 23 that Stride's nephew PC Stride identified her from mortuary photographs (note the plural) as the woman who had married his uncle. On that same date, Elizabeth Stokes, who *was* Mary Malcolm's sister, appeared at the inquest to refute her sister's testimony. So, it wasn't until that date that the coroner had an identification that was legally binding.
For the record, it appears to have been fellow-lodger Charles Preston who first correctly identified the body. As reported in the October 4 Daily Telegraph, he viewed the body on September 30 and correctly gave her full name as Elizabeth Stride, but he was also a non-relative.
Hope this helps,
Jim
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Alan,
Sorry bub, Im back in Leicester today.
Looking at it and knowing the area then Id say a tad more than 5 mins.
It depends on their pace. Was it a stroll? or because of the rain did they dart in and out of doorways ?
All I know is that is that the floor was damp. We have various statements from both the yard and Mitre square to verify this.
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:09 pm: | |
G'day,
JIM: I think this is from the same 'Daily Telegraph' report you read (I forgot to jot the date down): 'She was identified at the mortuary on Sunday morning by John Arundell and Charles Preston who resided at 32 Flower and Dean Street.' That's two non-relatives.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
The ''Illustrated Police News' 6 October said: 'The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after and not before the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are several bruises on her left cheek, thus showing that force must have been used to prostrate her, which would not have been necessary had her throat been already cut. When discovered the body was lying as if the woman had fallen forward, her feet being about a couple of yards from the street, and her head in a gutter which runs down the right-hand side of the court close to the wall. The woman lay on her left side, face downwards, her position being such that although the court at that part is only nine feet wide, a person walking up the middle might have passed the recumbent body without notice.'
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 926
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I'm only going from memory here, but I don't recall Blackwell or Phillips mentioning bruises on her cheek. Surely they would have done if these existed?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:47 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Yes, it's strange. I haven't seen anything about that either as far as I know, either in Blackwell's or Phillip's testimonies at the inquest, but I sure will check it out more thoroughly.
Could the paper have been mistaken and confused it with the bluish discoloration on the shoulders or the mud on one of the cheeks? As we know, they sometimes could be a bit too hasty in their analyses or factual evaluations.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 928
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Hi Glenn
For those who believe that Stride was forced to the ground, and maybe even pinned there, after being pulled about and thrown to the ground a short time before by Schwartz's man, there's the problem that there don't seem to have been enough bruises/pressure marks on Stride's body.
I'm still trying to work out the business with the scarf : can a scarf be pulled tight by pulling on any part of it other than the bow?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 410
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Well, the bruises on her shoulders could indicate that she's been thrown to the ground in some way, but these could also occure from other situations, I believe:
1) They could have been done in connection with the incident with the Schwartz man (unless he wasn't Jack or the killer in question, of course)
2) She could have gotten them from Kidney recently one way or the other (if the stories about him as a woman abuser is true).
We can at least assume that Stride's throat was cut while the body was in a fairly horisontal position, due to the abscense of blood splatter on the scene, so in one way or the other she did enter this position before her death. My bet is that the throat was cut either when she lay on the ground or when hold by the killer in that position, who then just realeased her to fall to the ground. Due to the cachous, I believe in the first alternative (unless they weren't placed in her hand by the killer as a part of the signature -- the lack of the rest of the signature, the mutilation, could then be explained by the interruption theory). So there are a lot of alternatives to consider.
I have no answer for you regarding the scarf, though, since I'm not competent enough in that field, but let me just say this: she could very well have been pulled down by the scarf (that is what I believe, and so did one of the doctors on the case as well -- for what it's worth...). Exactly how that was done I couldn't say.
Furthermore, a bit off the subject: As far as strangulation is concerned, we shouldn't disregard this possibility too hasty. The signs of strangulation is, among others, congestion of the face, sings of red blood marks in the eyes, swollen toungue etc. I just want to state, that we here in my town had a case of strangulation with a woman found alone in her own bed and with no signs of struggle. The doctor who came to the site didn't find any signs whatsoever on her body, indicating that a crime had been committed and it was therefore redarded as a death of uncertain or natural causes. It was first when an autopsy later was performed, that it was revealed that she had been murdered by strangulation. Since the investigation is not public the details are sparse, but no marks on her neck or throat was visible. I can't explain that from a forensic point of view, but that seem to be the case. So I don't think we should automatically assume (like what's been done here earlier) that Stride at least couldn't have been stunned to unconciousness at first before her throat was cut. And this could have been done with the scarf (at the same time as the other hand was used to block her mounth and nose), which was thereafter used to pull her down. I don't know -- I could be completely over my head here, but I'm just thinking out loud...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 119
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
Robert, Dr Blackwell stated at the inquest when asked by the foreman about any bruises or marks about the shoulders: "They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked."
For a mark to be faint at the time of death, becoming more pronounced after death it had to have occurred just prior to the death. Two marks equally spaced and of the same discoloration on the shoulders of the victim indicate that both marks were done at the same time such as being shoved backwards by both hands, pinning her against the wall of the club with both hands, reaching from behind to grasp her shoulders to pull her backwards or pull her to the ground, or (IMO) by the knees of the killer while he straddled her torso pinning her to the ground as she struggled to get away. His pants and her coat (and possible his coat depending on the length) would have assisted in padding the knees and prevented a more pronounced discoloration.
If it were the killer’s hands holding her shoulders pinned to the wall or ground it would indicate that Liz’s hands were free and able to fight back; which given the post mortem this does not appear to be the case. If the killer pulled her from behind she would have dropped whatever was in her hands to prevent being hurt in the fall.
Liz was not screaming due to her knowing her attacker, and while in a defensive position, not realizing that she is in danger because she has been in a similar position with the same individual in the past. Based on previous experiences she didn't believe it to be life threatening. All speculation, but it does allow for the sequence of events to play out to the ending found by the constable and the doctor when they arrived on scene.
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 933
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Shannon
I think I'm coming round to the view that Stride was somehow persuaded to lie on the ground, and her throat was then cut. At least that would explain the cachous.
As I see it, one of the problems with saying that she was strangled or partially strangled, or that she was killed by Schwartz's man, or that she was pinned to the ground while her throat was cut, is that these scenarios don't explain the cachous.
Another possibility is that she was pushed or pulled to the ground and her throat cut with lightning speed, so that she never had a chance to drop the cachous.
Shannon, is it your contention that Liz, as it were, cowered on the ground in front of Kidney, i.e. that she lay on the ground out of fear? But if it was Kidney who had attacked her in the street, at some point she got out her cachous after picking herself up, and went with him into the yard. It just doesn't sound right to me.
I do wonder whether Jack tried to strangle her, but couldn't get a grip on her slippery silk scarf. Hence the botched job.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 412
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Shannon
I picked up one of my old police hand-books and what Shannon says about the pressure marks is correct; if the mark is becoming more clearer on a later stage, it has been done just prior to death. I had absolutely no idea about that.
So that leaves us with that the marks must have been done by the killer in question, something I wasn't that sure of earlier.
The biggest problem I see with the theory that she lay herself down voluntarily is that the ground was muddy and damp and it had rained some time before. It was common for the women to do this act standing up, and this was one of the important reasons why -- I can imagine that the streets would have quite filthy regardless of the weather. I doubt that any woman would lay down on the ground on her own free will on such conditions. Even if she knew the man. And it's hardly comfortable for any of them anyway. I don't buy it.
Regarding the cachous, Robert, they are a complete mystery to me anyway; whatever the "plot" involved, they don't really fit in. But I agree that they certainly are problematic in relation to the posibility that she was pulled down.
"Another possibility is that she was pushed or pulled to the ground and her throat cut with lightning speed, so that she never had a chance to drop the cachous."
I think this could be a possible explanation. (There is also a possibility that she did drop the cachous during the same procedure, but the killer then put them back in her hand as a part of the signature before sneaking away -- he could have done this even though he was interrupted -- but I think that would be to stretch it a bit.)
I am not so sure that she knew the killer on such a personal level; there really are nothing that points to that except the cachous. I just think he attacked her quickly and with force and that she never had time to defend herself or to scream -- like I assume happended with the other Ripper victims. Can't be sure, but that's what I believe.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 935
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Shannon
Could I just get clear on this point? How prior is "Just prior"?
In other words, is it possible for Schwartz's man to have caused the pressure marks when he threw Stride down at 12.45 approx, and for her to then have been murdered approx 15 minutes later? Or is this a scenario that we must reject on forensic grounds?
How long before death could the marks have been made to keep within the bounds of what is forensically possible?
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 6:19 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
The Daily Telegraph report I used for Preston's statement was the coverage of day 3 of the inquest. This was published on October 4th.
The name "John Arundell" does not appear in the DT coverage of the inquest, so perhaps this was not the same report? I actually don't recall hearing that name at all in reference to the case, can you recall the source of that quote?
Cheers,
Jim
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
G'day Jim,
I just typed 'Arundell' into the newspaper search engine, and came up with 'East London Advertiser' October 6. and 'Manchester Guardian' November 22. No 'Daily Telegraph', sorry. I don't know how I made that mistake!
In 'East London Advertiser', look at the 4th paragraph under the subheading 'The Mysterious Atrocities in Whitechapel'.
In 'Manchester Guardian', look at the 15th line from the top.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 11:22 pm: | |
Robert, absolutely. The marks would have been made within the last 10 - 15 minutes of life, so the man Israel saw could have been the one who made the marks on Liz.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 938
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 3:56 am: | |
Shannon, thanks for that clarification. I'm just trying to visualise your scenario - what was where, and when - his knees, his right hand, his left hand, her hands, etc.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 121
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Robert, A lot of speculation goes into how she came to her death because there doesn't seem to be a logical explaination that puts the pieces in place.
(IMO) Liz and the killer knew each other. I do not know what the sequence of events was prior to her being on the ground, only that it appears to have been a "non life threatening event" based on Liz having the cachoes (actually could have been anything) in her hand when she died. The cachoes were in tissue paper so they could not have been used as a weapon and would have been dropped to allow her to make a fist to be used in self defence.
If she knew she was in danger, she would have fought off her attacker with everything she had, feet, hands, bucking side to side to throw him off, and screaming for help; which does not appear to have happened. First point for it being someone she knew.
Once her throat had been cut, she had about a minute to live, she should have had both her hands wrapped around her neck in an attempt to stop the bleeding as she was unable to call for help at this time having had her windpipe cut in the attack. Since she had the cachoes in her hand, this hand had to have been clutched in such a way by her attacker so as to prevent her from letting go of them or reaching her wound (there was no blood on this hand). The only way to do that is for his hand to have hold of hers while she is clutching the cachoes.
To do this the killer has to be in front of her, and since she is on the ground (no blood spray on the front of her clothing to indicate her throat was cut while standing up), the killer has to be beside or on top of her. If he is beside her holding on to her left hand, she would have turned to get away from him leaving mud on the right side of her clothing as she rolled around, and there is none.
The killer has to be on top of her pinning her to the ground preventing her from moving. Since her hand is still holding the cachoes the killer could not have been using his hands to make the discolorations on her shoulders or she would have used her hands which are free to ward off the attack.
Since her throat was cut on the left side and her attacker is in front of her, and she is on the ground, it makes sense that the attacker held her left hand with his left hand and the only way to do that is for him to have his knees pinning her shoulders to the ground.
This explaination also allows for Liz's right hand to be covered in blood as the killer did not have hold of it allowing her to use it to try and stop the blood flow in her neck; which it was bloody with no cut on it.
With the killer on top of her, and her throat cut, had the killer got up and left at any point before she died, or before she passed out both hands would have been around her throat. Her left was on the ground with no blood on it, her right was across her chest with blood in it and not on her throat so we know the killer was there until she died because if not her right hand would have been found around her neck which it was not.
For this to happen, her right hand had to have been able at one time to reach her throat but afterwards moved and prevented from returning to her throat. It was obstructed in some way that would cause it to fall to her chest area when she died, or when the obstruction was removed near, at, or after death.
If the killer's knee is in the way and she had to reach around it to get to her wound, her arm would have been raised in front of her (resting on his thigh) and when he raised up to leave her arm would have fallen across her breast which is where it was found when the PC and doctor arrived.
If this is correct, the killer didn't leave until after she was dead, was not disturbed, and the murder was complete. |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Thanks for the references, I'm off to the Press Reports section to check it out.
Jim |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 944
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 6:14 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
That's quite a good shot! As you say, it's well-nigh impossible to get a totally satisfying scenario for this crime.
I assume that this is an oral sex scenario, with Kidney pinning her with his knees on her shoulders. That would explain why she had the cachous in her hand - they were for afterwards.
A few comments :
I think the right hand is more likely to drop by her side onto the ground when he gets off her - but still could have ended up on her breast when he rolled her onto her left side right at the end.
But wouldn't rolling her onto her left side have left blood on her left cheek? He would have been rolling her right into the blood.
There was no spatter on the wall. I thought that Phillips was saying that there would have been spatter on the wall, unless she was cut while lying on her left side - which is why he thought the knife was a shortish one. If she was on her left side, the spatter would have gone into the ground.
If she was in agony wouldn't the nails of the right hand have dug into her palm?
I just find the idea of his pinning her while she bled to death rather strange. If he had slashed her a second time, to finish her off, or just walked off and left her to die, it would have seemed more natural. But to cut her and then hold her down till she bled to death, that just seems very weird.
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
Robert, not pinning her down to have oral sex. Pinning her on the ground to get her attention; much the same we did as kids in the school yard when we wanted someone to give up. If he pinned her against the wall of the club, a knee to the groin would have him bending over and her running away.
I think he grabbed both her hands while she was arguing with him, pushed backwards where she slipped in the mud and fell to the ground landing on her back. Not wanting to let her go, he lands on top of her. Now he has her pinned to the ground and can tell her what he wants to say. Problem is she isnt listening, so the knife comes out as a means to scare her, only doesnt work, so he goes to put it againt her throat, only she shruggs her shoulder, tries to kick him off, and the knife goes in. Intentional or not, not sure...
Only speculation and nothing to base it on...
Shannon |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 12:49 pm: | |
Was Stride left- or right-handed? Presumably, a right-handed person would take cachous in their right hand to bring to the mouth, and would hold the packet in the left hand. This might indicate that Liz was feeding on the cachous just before she were attacked. This analysis of course assumes that Liz was not feeding by dumping cachous from the packet into the palm of her hand, and then bringing it that way to her mouth. In that case, a right-handed person would probably hold the packet in their right hand, and feed with the left.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Brilliant Deduction Department:
Notice that the Ripper wasn't said to wearing a scarf by Schwartz, but Lawende said he was wearing a scarf. Then notice that he had to pull Stride's scarf aside to fit the knife to her neck. Viola! He got the idea to put on his scarf from Stride. Since he had to muff about pulling her scarf aside, he thought "By George, I'll put on a scarf meself!" This proves that the same man who killed Stride also killed Eddowes.
Saddam
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
