|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 9:42 am: |       |
Hi Erin, everyone
Yes, I suppose it's possible she may have been "soft strangled' by the scarf. If it was very quick, maybe she held onto her cachous, though I still find this a problem....
But anyway, Dr Blackwell seemed to be saying that the killer pulled her back by her scarf, and this is how it got tightened. I can't quite follow Dr Blackwell here, as I don't see how pulling her by the scarf would have tightened it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.
If he actually used the scarf to strangle her though, it may be that as suggested the mark was obliterated by the cut. Also as the scarf was silk, I suppose it would have left less of a mark than other materials would have done.
I don't know whether a scarf can physically obstruct a very sharp knife, but it may have obstructed the killer psychologically - the border was frayed by the throat cut.
The thing about the hyoid bone is that most of the full PMs have been lost, leaving us just summaries. Glenn, if you look at Phillips's report on McKenzie in the Sourcebook, that's the kind of detail that is now lost to us.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 511
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 2:19 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Yes, Phillip's report on McKenzie is very detailed and I agree, one would wish that we had the same kind of documentation to rely on the other cases as well, but it is unfortunately not just in London that such papers have disappeared - authopsy reports from the 19th century is lost over here as well.
But the thing is, the hyoid bone isn't mentioned in the doctors' statements before the inquests either - OK, so maybe they just lay forward a summary, but nevertheless...
Yes, a silk scarf doesn't leave such distinctive marks as a rope or snare during strangulation, since its edges and the material is softer. I have a couple of pictures before me here, in a police hand-book, showing marks on two different necks - one of them is done with a snare or rope and the other one with a silk scarf. On the latter the marks are less visible and distinct than on the first one (where the mark has made an incredible deep score or cut through the neck), and one must also consider that on these pictures, the pressure from the tighten of the strangulation material has been permanent since the event happened until it was taken off. If we assume that some alledged strangulation on Stride was made, the pressure maybe just occured for a few seconds - I wonder if that would leave any permanent marks at all.
I don't know if it would tighten just by someone pulling it, though,; as I see it Blackwell just lay forward a personal hypothesis, I don't know how much we can take that one seriously. I have no idea how that is supposed to have happened either, but maybe it's possible. I'm not the one to tell. But as Erin said: "to pull a knot out of our shoelaces, only to find that we've only succeeded in tightening the knot. If the murderer grabbed her scarf and twisted it once or twice he could incapacitate her fairly quickly." I don't think this is impossible, but to fully understand it we naturally should have had pictures of the knot in question to study it more carefully.
I believe it is possible, by the way, that Stride could have been persued or threatened to lay down voluntarily, I can very much understand and relate to that myself as well, but then we have a problem with the modus operandi of Jack the Ripper and how this can be applied on Stride. Most details in the Ripper murders indicate a "blitz" attack, and I have some trouble with this "threatening" scenario as a part of the murderer's method - if he was Jack the Ripper. If this was the case, then the suprise effect of the attack would be lost, I think.
And... WHAT! I've been promoted again! Chief Inspector.. Hmmm... Still no raise, I presume?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Chief Inspector
Congratulations on your promotion. And with a surname like yours, you should go right to the top.
Thanks for the info on the scarf. Re the hyoid, Prof Keith Simpson says that breaks or fractures to the hyoid are extremely strong evidence of strangulation. However as Erin said, a very young woman could be strangled and the bone remain intact.
I don't know whether the Victorians knew about the hyoid-strangulation link. But also, as Erin said, maybe the deep knife cuts destroyed not only possible strangulation marks but also hyoid bone damage.
By the way, Glenn, you were surprised that a doctor missed the soft strangulation in the case you mentioned. In the Simpson book, Simpson mentions that a doctor failed to spot a seven month pregnancy!
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Harry
I doubt if the killer was one of the three.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Glenn.
I have just realized that you two have gained more promotion, Robert I never thought you would overtake Leanne, she was the front runner in the race, and was odds on to be assistant commissioner
I to started of like a sprinter, but being 56years old, and 16 stone faded as predicted, but leanne and myself have been engrossed in the book, very time consuming.
Anyway congratulations for achieving such a respected rank, you have both contributed many hours of discussion , and hats off to you both.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
Thanks, Richard. I'm not sure how many of my posts have made sense!
I expect to see you and Leanne breathing down my neck as soon as the book's out of the way, and I enjoy debating with both of you. I can see you both are putting everything into the JTR mystery.
But we must all watch out for Glenn, Richard. He's a dark horse, you know. And look at his surname!
Robert
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Saddam--Hello. A silver-back is a dominant gorilla, the alpha male. In your post above you challenge the idea that the murderer shows "low dominance" (whatever the heck that is); you use the Event in Berner Street to support your claim: Pipeman & Schwartz (you seem to imply) ran away from the Alpha Male. But hey, aren't you fudging a bit with the case evidence?
To imply that Schwartz and/or the Pipe man were running away from Stride's attacker seems like a bit of devious speculation to me. It's not in the evidence. In 2 of the 3 accounts we have of the incident, Schwartz walked to the opposite side of the road to avoid the event between Stride & Broadshoulders. Further, in both the Star account & in Swanson's Oct. 19th report, the man Schwartz was actually running from was the Pipe Man not Stride's attacker. (Abberline is ambivalent in his 1 November report).
As Schwartz evidently ran past his own street, one might take this as evidence that he really did believe he was being chased.
Now, I admit that Broadshoulders did exhibit some abuse towards Schwartz, but could this suggest that he isn't our man? On the other occasions didn't the murderer focus on exceedingly drunk, sickly & weak women in dark corners?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 512
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
Thank you, Richard.
Very nice of you. Since a promotion to Chief Inspector probably leads to more paper work, administration and tedious fighting with the press (and less interesting police work), those warming words are sure needed. However, I think my quick race says more about my social life, though, than my attempts to achieve something of value to this department. But I will shoulder my new task with responsibility. Maybe I even can afford that new tube of moustasch wax, I'm almost out of it...
Robert! Thank you as well.
Will I ever outrank you?
I have totally missed your promotion. Congratulations to that distinguish title of yours. You're absolutely worth it; I knew you had it in you, chief.
I don't think you should feel challenged regarding your position, Robert. I'd like to stay out on the field as long as possible. But my department could use some extra money...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 513
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 7:38 pm: | |
What is most problematic regarding Scwartz' assaulting fellow is that we have no clue whatsoever concerning his whereabouts or actions after Schwartz and the "pipe" man fled (?) the scene.
I for my part would love to see another witness statement or source backing or verifying Schwartz' testimony, and maybe even stating what happened a few minutes later. As it is now that man just leaves us with speculations and qualified guesses. That's what's bugging me the most.
Therefore we can't automatically assume that the three men involved here was the killer. There could have been a fourth man entering the scene some minutes later (you know who...), but since we have no witnesses confirming Schwartz' testimony, how do we know that everything he says is correct and valid, and how do we know what really happened after Schwartz' departure?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 12:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Re extra money for your department, funds are a bit tight at the moment, you know how it is....
The good news is, I can get you into the Masons.
I agree with you, my money's on the fourth man.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 520
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
OK. We'll get by - for now. We may have to cut down on the budget for Leanne's and Richard's Barnett investigation, though, since it has become quite expensive... But we'll manage.
I didn't really need those additional 150 PC:s in Whitechapel and Spitalfields anyway... 
The Masons sounds great. I assume I have to start with sweeping the floors and sharpening the knives, then... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
You are not going to take Leanne and myself off the case are you?. Dont listen to Chief Inspector Anderson,Leanne and myself are a good team, even if we are accused of wearing blinkers...
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Richard
On the contrary, I expect a full and thorough investigation of Barnett. I would be particularly interested if you dug up any dirt on him concerning fish. I have long wondered whether he was stealing fish for McCarthy. This might explain the strange business of the rent arrears.
Go in hard on the fish, Richard - there are no herrings in my Lodge.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 521
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"On the contrary, I expect a full and thorough investigation of Barnett."
I do as well; if the department don't recieve promising reults - corresponding to the money I've put into it - I'll have a lot of explaining to do to your superiors... That would be the shortest Chief Inspector career in history.
Richard!
Why are you going behind my back to the Assistant Commissioner?
Don't worry, you're still on the case, just don't let me down. I expect a full preliminary report on the case before christmas next year - that's the best I can do.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 5:08 pm: | |
Sadaam
sorry, as I've been in the bar for the entire weekend I've only just seen your post.
I can understand your view of Jack, and I hope you can understand my point of view. There are probably just as many people around like yourself who view Jack as some kind of mythical super killer - able to strike out at will in an almost supernatural manner - as there are people like myself who view Jack as nothing more than an immature but lucky coward who targeted the most vulnerable section of an already vulnerable 'surplus population'.
There is not really much evidence to back up either view.
All we can do is study and inform. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | |
RESPONSES TO ALL MY ADORING FANS:
1. While Schwartz did walk to the opposite side of Berner Street, clearly when he then ran he was not running from the Pipe man. No eyewitness account states that the Pipe man started running before Schwartz did; Swanson's account I don't believe should be read as indicating Schwartz was running away from the Pipe man; rather merely that he ran away after the Pipe man appeared. I think you are maybe getting a little bit too fudgy with the case evidence yourself, RJ! Schwartz bugged out of there frightened by the crime scene in toto, and only after he'd run some distance and turned around to look back did he see the Pipe man following him. At this discovery Schwartz became so terrified he wet his pants, and fled hysterically past the railway arch. If Schwartz had known the Pipe man had been following him earlier, he'd have wet his pants earlier, if it were the Pipe man he was running away from. But he didn't, Schwartz wet his pants in terror only after he'd seen the Pipe man following him some distance. Urine doesn't lie, RJ.
2. Yes, the murderer previously focused on weak people in corners, but look what he did to them! He cut them wide open! And he did it in corners around which were thousands of people! Not once but several times! If he were shy and retiring, surely he'd find a more reticent way to get these jobs done. These were not reticent crimes, but attempts on the part of someone to show what he could do, show what he was capable of. He also wanted to show medical skill. These were show off crimes, triumphal or trophy crimes, and with trophies removed.
3. Anyone who says there was a fourth man at the crime scene is embellishing. No eyewitness reported this. We can't embellish, we must grow up. If we don't grow up we die as babies, failing to reach our full potential. Since we are all going to DIE, let's make the most of what we have before we just can't.
4. "...an immature but lucky coward who targeted the most vulnerable section of an already vulnerable 'surplus population'." I agree with this assessment as far as it goes. But I don't believe this means he was shy and retiring. There are plenty of immature, lucky exhibitionists, aren't there? PS May I join you at the bar?
Saddam
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
While there is information that can reliably put three men on the scene of Strides killing,there is no information whatsoever that places a fourth man there.A possibility yes,but I am surprised Glen that you depart from your usual view of at least accepting some reliability before introducing a new concept.
A possibility should at least have some support,some fact, evidence,or information that makes it a worthwhile consideration,and there is none that suggests a fourth man.
I can understand why the man that accosted Stride should not come fourth.Even if innocent of the killing,he would realise he was in a tight spot,and would have difficulty in proving his innocence.
I can find no understanding of person seen by Browne,or the second man seen by Scwhartz,not coming forward.Each could give important information.On the other hand they could also expect a severe grilling by police,and anyone in the vicinity of one of the series of crimes,would have to be carefull he could not be associated with any of the others. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
Saddam
You are more than welcome to join me at the bar.
Directions:
Heathrow Airport. Terminal 4. Air Mauritius Flight. Taxi to Jenny's Place. I'll be there. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
Hi Saddam/David
One reason I want to introduce a fourth man, is because of the cachous. Schwartz's man doesn't seem to fit with the cachous, so I want to introduce someone who would fit with them.
By contrast, I tend to think that Lawende saw JTR. There seems no reason to introduce another man here (though it's still possible that Eddowes was in fact murdered by another man).
An Adoring Fan |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
As assistant commissioner, you should not be a adoring fan of anyone,
Seriously the cachous [ a fragrance pastel] was surely belonging to Stride, dont forget she was in the Bricklayers arms during the evening , and proberly consumed a fair amount of alcohol, we have no imformation whether or not she was a smoker, but as alcohol and tobacco go together[ at least for me] i would guess a possibility.
My assumption is she was aware of a possible breath problem, because of her evening activities, like a lot of motorists do when having a couple of pints on the way home and suck strong mints.as the cachous were in he left hands any attack witnessed by swhartz[ bad spelling[ if she was right handed she would have tried to break her fall with that hand , the cachous were proberly always contained in her left, it was only a small paper packet after all.
regarding your feeling about Lawande proberly seeing Eddowes killer, ask yourself one question, was this the same man that attacked Nichols and Stride, the approach is vastly different.
I cannot wait until Our book is completed , i can assure everyone, it reveals a lot of intresting points, even I am exited, and I know the contents.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 527
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:12 pm: | |
Harry,
I have really no idea what you're talking about. It is absolutely true that there is no evidence of a fourth man, but then there is no facts whatsoever that tells us what happened after Schwartz ran away. I think there is a problem either way, actually.
-- We have no other statements from witnesses regarding the scene or persons seen be Scwartz. That makes his testimony less than credible, since it can't be verified (that is also the case with many other witness statements in ths case). You can't seriously mean that we automatically should take his word for what happened, especially as this episode have such great importance to the Stride mystery. I think far too much weight and credit have been laid upon the accuracy of Schwartz testimony. How do we know how much of it is true or if he got something wrong? I prefer to look at schwartz with a critical eye.
-- The thing that most makes me question the assaulting man as Stride's killer (whether he was the Ripper or someone else) is that his strange and noisy behaviour doesn't fit a killer, unless he's a complete imbecill or drunk out of his mind. I have said it before and I'll say it again: to kill Stride after having assaulted her in public (seen by two people) is not logical, and most importantly: I believe Stride AFTER this assault would be on her guard against this man. Nothing is impossible, but to me it doesen't add up.
Just to say that he was the killer because we only know about this character and the other two is not good enough. Once again, how do we know what happened after Schwartz departed from the scene, and how do we know that a fourth person didn't enter and saw his opportunity? I think it's a fair question to ask.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Drunk out of his mind.. the man seen by Schwatz, was described as intoxicated.
Alcohol is a strong simulant, as we all know, it can alter ones atitude, and can give a bravado. I believe all the murders were commited by someone under the influence, who when in that state of mind was capable of such madness.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:42 pm: | |
Hi Richard
I don't know about the approach JTR may have used on Nichols. He may have led her there, she may have led him there, he may have encountered her in Buck's Row, she might even have been asleep on the pavement at the time, paralytic. But I don't want you to reveal all the secrets of your book.
It seems to me that whoever killed Stride did it with a certain speed and dexterity (despite the comparatively bungled nature of the throat cut). I'm just wondering whether a drunken man would have been up to this.
Glenn, I agree with your point about the killer being crazy to kill Stride after making a scene.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Dont worry I shall not reveal secrets of our book, Leanne outranks me, Dont forget there are degrees of drunkeness, depending on the person,I would have thought a person capable of walking albeit a bit unsteady would have the capability of slitting a persons throat if the desire wished.
As for the killer being crazy to kill stride after a scene , as I have mentioned alcohol is a way of inticing bravery, regardless of risk.
Richard. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
I can see what Saddam is getting at now and might agree that here indeed we have a killer of extraordinary daring and sang-froid lucky not to get caught and probably capable of charming these women into secluded places etc.And he had the presence of mind and single mindedness of a competitive athlete in the execution[!] of the tasks he set himself.But the personality type particularly when not experiencing a psychosis would prbably have been rather secretive and reserved and emotionally cold. And for all the Ha Ha"s attributed to him I bet he didn"t often have a laugh certainly not at himself. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
