Discussion : Out To Kill ?

[Adam Went]

Lynn:

Liz appeared to be waiting for someone even as the first man approached her. Schwartz is unclear, and seemingly doesn't even know whether the second man is following him or chasing him. My guess is that he was just "shooing" him away. It wouldn't have taken him long to return to the scene, Liz would barely have had time to even gather herself - which may well have worked to his advantage.

Wicker:

Well, if witness descriptions are the issue..... if you believe the first man was the killer, then you'd have to believe that a man Schwartz described as being apparently under the influence of alcohol and willing to create a scene right on the side of a street where, just metres away, there was a building filled with activity. That is not how any other major witness describes JTR, he is invariably seen chatting quietly with his soon to be victim. The first man Schwartz saw is, IMO, nothing more than a violent drunk who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In any case, Pipeman was standing in a doorway, is it not possible that his height there would appear to be elevated? Schwartz, after all, was not really focusing on him and his description is quite vague - naturally he was focusing on the attacker.

So, which is your belief? That Stride was not killed by JTR? That Schwartz was lying or horribly mistaken? That there was a third person unknown involved?

As for the knife, that's a very long bow to draw. Plenty of people even now carry knives around with them for work or other perfectly innocent reasons, doesn't mean they plan on cutting somebody up with it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Lynn Cates]

gather ye cachous while ye may

Hello Adam. Thanks.

"Liz appeared to be waiting for someone even as the first man approached her."

Seems that way to me.

"It wouldn't have taken him long to return to the scene, Liz would barely have had time to even gather herself - which may well have worked to his advantage."

Well, she seems "gathered" enough to go into the yard and extract cachous from, presumably, her pocket.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

altercation

Hello Jon. Thanks.

So, she took them out whilst in the altercation?

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

Wicker:
Well, if witness descriptions are the issue.....

Its not that I think they are thee issue, its more that I see it being a very hard sell to suggest that all the suspect descriptions were wrong.

... if you believe the first man was the killer, then you'd have to believe that a man Schwartz described as being apparently under the influence of alcohol and willing to create a scene right on the side of a street where, just metres away, there was a building filled with activity. That is not how any other major witness describes JTR, he is invariably seen chatting quietly with his soon to be victim.

I don't believe the first man (BSman) was the killer, or even a killer. And the 'stagger' might just be that he had an awkward gait (walked funny). There are descriptions of suspicious men who also had an awkward gait. He may not have been drunk at all.

On the other hand, if he was so drunk as to stagger about in Berner St. then he must have sobered up rather sharpish to head of to Mitre Sq. and kill again?
No, I don't buy it.

In any case, Pipeman was standing in a doorway, is it not possible that his height there would appear to be elevated? Schwartz, after all, was not really focusing on him and his description is quite vague - naturally he was focusing on the attacker.

Yes, but we do not know at what point Schwartz saw sufficient of him to judge his height, probably not in the alcove of a dark doorway.

So, which is your belief? That Stride was not killed by JTR? That Schwartz was lying or horribly mistaken? That there was a third person unknown involved?

For the longest time I have been against Stride being by JtR, all I can say today is, I am not as convinced about that as I have been in the past.
Along with this, I see too much careless noisy violence by BSman, this is not the approach we are led to believe typical of JtR, as you say above, JtR had the quiet approach. The only noise associated with him is that which comes from the victim as he 'struck'.

My biggest concern with Schwartz is not his story, its why he was not called to the inquest. And my other concern is this "lying witness" argument which tends to surface every now and then.
Because we lack knowing specific details some will try to invent a solution and this invention quite often involves dismissing the witness as a liar. Generally this can be seen as a red flag which lays the groundwork for the introduction of a theory that required getting that witness out of the way.

And lastly, identifying a single JtR is tasking enough without making him into a double act. By doubling the act we double the problems.

As for the knife, that's a very long bow to draw. Plenty of people even now carry knives around with them for work or other perfectly innocent reasons, doesn't mean they plan on cutting somebody up with it.

People today tend to carry penknives if anything, not straight 6" blades, at least in my part of the world. There is a difference.

I don't have a theory or a suspect, and I haven't read a good one of either by anyone yet.

.

[Lynn Cates]

cachous again

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Then she was walking about with cachous in her hand for some time? And they are lying there, dormant?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

replacement

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, I've heard of playing with food, but one often takes such items out to use them. Afterwards, they are replaced.

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

What are the alternatives?

- Stride kept hold of the cachous throughout the assault?

- The killer placed them in her hand after the assault?

Which is the most likely?

If the killer did not have time to mutilate her then where did he get the time to place something in her hand? and if so, why? - what is the message?
This is clearly the more complex of the two solutions.

Doesn't that really put an end to the riddle of cachous?

.

[Lynn Cates]

quickie

Hello Jon. Thanks.

If Liz went for the cachous and held them through a 2 second assault (as per Dr. Blackwell and my reenactment, no problem.

But a pas de deux is right out.

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

If Liz went for the cachous and held them through a 2 second assault (as per Dr. Blackwell and my reenactment, no problem.

But a pas de deux is right out.

Cheers.
LC

If the cachous in her hand are suggestive of 'clutching' then perhaps she was choked or strangled by some means?
Not for long enough to have the desired effect, or strong enough to leave marks, but an attempt nevertheless?

.

[Lynn Cates]

furtive

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"If the cachous in her hand are suggestive of 'clutching' then perhaps she was choked or strangled by some means?"

Well, a movement to the neck, certainly.

"Not for long enough to have the desired effect, or strong enough to leave marks, but an attempt nevertheless?"

Well, perhaps a furtive one? From my reenactment, I believe that the tail of her scarf was pulled, causing the circumference around the neck to lessen and the knot to migrate left. Whist taut, the knife was applied, causing the scarf to be frayed.

But if Dr. Blackwell is wrong, I am wrong.

Cheers.
LC

[Adam Went]

Lynn:

Well of course the theory i'm running with goes that the second man approached Liz after BS man and Schwartz had left the scene under the good samaritan guise of enquiring as to her welfare (in the whole "oh dear i just saw what happened and wanted to see if you were alright..." vein) and used this as a means to lure her into the passageway.

Wicker:

Its not that I think they are thee issue, its more that I see it being a very hard sell to suggest that all the suspect descriptions were wrong.

And yet many of the witness descriptions are so vastly different, even when they're from the same night. So how do we decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong, and how do we explain such differences?

I don't believe the first man (BSman) was the killer, or even a killer. And the 'stagger' might just be that he had an awkward gait (walked funny). There are descriptions of suspicious men who also had an awkward gait. He may not have been drunk at all.

On the other hand, if he was so drunk as to stagger about in Berner St. then he must have sobered up rather sharpish to head of to Mitre Sq. and kill again?
No, I don't buy it.

That's quite possible (the gait) but whatever the case, he was evidently a violent man and IMO the suggestion that he was violent towards Liz under the influence of alcohol is a much more likely proposition than suggesting he had come kind of physical/medical problem.

However we are in total agreement with your second paragraph, if BS man was indeed Liz's killer then the Mitre Square murder makes no sense. I don't buy it either.

Yes, but we do not know at what point Schwartz saw sufficient of him to judge his height, probably not in the alcove of a dark doorway.

Don't quote me on this as it's been a long time since i've studied Schwartz's statements in the press and I don't have access to them at the moment, but I seem to recall Schwartz stating that his first sighting of Pipeman was as he was standing in the doorway, presumably protecting himself from the elements while he was lighting his pipe.

I agree with you that Schwartz's lack of appearance at the inquest is an anomaly indeed, although I have wondered in the past if Schwartz may have feared for his family in appearing at the inquest (evidently he was already very frightened) or whether there may have been a language barrier issue with him making statements at the inquest, given he could speak little or no English at all. I don't believe it's as sinister as some would have us think.

People today tend to carry penknives if anything, not straight 6" blades, at least in my part of the world. There is a difference.

Same here, pen knives or pocket knives, but a knife is a knife and it's not difficult to acquire one which could cause some significant damage. The police knew this even in 1888, they couldn't stop and arrest a man purely because he was carrying a knife - even a bloody knife - because they were so common in so many different lines of work.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Lynn Cates]

consolation

Hello Adam. Thanks.

"Well of course the theory I'm running with goes that the second man approached Liz after BS man and Schwartz had left the scene under the good samaritan guise of enquiring as to her welfare (in the whole "oh dear I just saw what happened and wanted to see if you were alright..." vein) and used this as a means to lure her into the passageway."

Yes. This is not a totally uncommon point of view.

Of course, in Israel's story, he went off and Pipe Man followed. If they were even two minutes in fleeing, then, when Pipe Man stopped and returned, we must add another two or three minutes.

And so Liz is left standing and waiting for five minutes for PM to return and console her?

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

Wicker:
Its not that I think they are thee issue, its more that I see it being a very hard sell to suggest that all the suspect descriptions were wrong.

And yet many of the witness descriptions are so vastly different, even when they're from the same night. So how do we decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong, and how do we explain such differences?

Adam.
The view I take is that mostly witness descriptions are very similar with acceptable differences, like variations in height, or type of hat, or close in age. It was probably accepted just as much then as it is now that witness descriptions can be unreliable, but some aspect is typically correct.
For instance in the Stride case, I can see the man described by PC Smith & William Marshall being the same man, yet the man described by James Brown is a different man (actually a different couple).

That's quite possible (the gait) but whatever the case, he was evidently a violent man and IMO the suggestion that he was violent towards Liz under the influence of alcohol is a much more likely proposition than suggesting he had come kind of physical/medical problem.

I fully understand that, but when you have identified a Person of Interest who does have an awkward gait, who does have funny eyes, and is known to accost women at night, you tend to see less of an obstacle.

.

[Lynn Cates]

Hmmm

Hello Jon.

"when you have identified a Person of Interest who does have an awkward gait, who does have funny eyes, and is known to accost women at night"

Hmmm. OK, yes, he was already pinched.

Cheers.
LC

[Wicker Man]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon.

"when you have identified a Person of Interest who does have an awkward gait, who does have funny eyes, and is known to accost women at night"

Hmmm. OK, yes, he was already pinched.

Cheers.
LC

One of them was.

.