Was Liz Stride's scarf used by her murderer?

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"To be pulled backward by the handkerchief one would think a full knotted one was being worn,as pressure on the other two kinds would just pull the handkerchief free."

Exactly, Harry. My wiew is that we are dealing with two overhand knots added to each other, and I take it that is what you call a full knot.

"Blackwells notion of being pulled is only an opinion"

I prefer to call it a fact, Harry. He spoke of the knot having been pulled "very hard", and I don´t see why we should consider that merely "an opinion".

"so when did it become knotted?"

I think we need to ask Liz about that - she would have been the originator of that knot.

"how come the collar of her jacket was not grasped at the same time,if Stride was pulled backwards?"

Because the scarf was situated above the collar? Whichever, if the killer reached out and put his hand between scarf and neck, it may have meant that the collar was thrown into the bargain too, so to speak - but why would he try and suffocate her by the collar AND the scarf? Sounds clumsy to me. In such a case, he could simply choose to ler his fingertips follow the inside of her collar upwards until he felt the scarf, and then opt for gripping only that. I fail to see any problems in this.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In my note to Tome, the text "Another thing to consider is that I mean that he gripped her scarf with her left hand " should of course read "...with HIS left hand."

The best,
Fiherman

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Adam.

"Alternatively, if she was not strangled first, would she not have had time to call out or make a defence?"

Having time to call out does not entail calling out. Moreover, there was the matter of Russian folk music from above.

Defense? Are you aware of how fast this all happens? My tests take no more than 2-3 seconds.

"Also, why no larger amount of blood spatter if that was the case?"

Her neck would be over the ground--the blood is spraying directly below. (This worked perfectly in my 2 dry runs.)

"Bear in mind that if JTR cut her throat while she was still fully conscious, he would have had the knife in one hand, meaning he had to hold her down and prevent her from defending/yelling with just one hand, not to mention have to make the lethal cut properly with the other hand . . ."

Why hold her down? She is now rotated until nearly facing the ground and the knife is draw across her throat, from left to right, held in his right hand while he holds onto the scarf with the left. (Try it! Well, you know what I mean.)

"Moments after she'd called out while being attacked on the street?"

You refer to Israel's story. I consider that PURE prevarication.

At any rate, all I need is a good place to film and you shall see what I mean.

Why not do a demo of your own for comparison?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

"Tome" and "Fiherman" - so much for the good will to correct a misspelled post ...

Sorry, folks!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Blackwell himself states,at the inquest,that it was his opinion.However if you want to differ,go ahead,i'll not argue. What kind of a knot?I do not know.I was just giving three types that I know of.Blackwell didn't specify.

Blackwell says the handkerchief was tightly knotted around the neck.Could that mean it might have been loose and the knot was tight,or that both were tight?If the handkerchiek itself were tight and had been used to pull,wouldn't it be expected there were marks of such all around the neck?I am only asking questions.

From memory of when wearing such attire was common,a handkerchief would be worn inside the jacket,and not too tight.Sometimes not even a half knot,and the collar of the jacket would obscure most of the handkerchief.I doubt a woman would spend a considerable time with a tight constriction around the neck when it could easily be worn loose.(A man's collar on the other hand was a different matter).With the jacket buttoned up it would not be easy to obtain a good grasp of the handkerchief,without allerting the wearer.

The simplest method of rendering Stride insensible,in my opinion,is that put forward by another poster.The crook of the arm around the neck,from a position behind her.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

The knot of the scarf was situated to the left of Strides neck, and it was pulled very tight. That remains a fact, and not an opinion, I´m afraid.
This was how it was worded at the inquest by Blackwell:
"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight."
No mentioning there that the tight pulling was just an opinion of Blackwells, and indeed: why on earth would it be?
As for the tightness of the scarf itself, this was what was offered a bit further on into the inquest:
"Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out? - I could not say that."
...meaning that Blackwell would not agree that this was the case, the way I understand it.

"The simplest method of rendering Stride insensible,in my opinion,is that put forward by another poster.The crook of the arm around the neck,from a position behind her."

That may well be the case, Harry. The question remains, though: Why would anybody first do that, and then pull the knot of Strides scarf very tight afterwards ...? I think we need to accept the facts for what they are, and try to refrain from giving the killer good advice of how to go about suffocating - he managed pretty well by himself, using that scarf.


The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

A scarf's knot would have most probably been just a square knot. I suggest that the tightening of the knot was the result of it slipping as the killer tugged on the ends to control her as he slit her throat. In my opinion, the tightening was incidental to the action and not anything purposeful.

And welcome back Fisherman!

Mike

[FrankO]

As for the tightness of the scarf itself, this was what was offered a bit further on into the inquest:
"Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out? - I could not say that."
...meaning that Blackwell would not agree that this was the case, the way I understand it.

I don’t think you’ve understood Blackwell’s answer well, Fish. He wasn’t saying that he thought the scarf was tight enough to prevent her from calling out, he just said he didn’t know, which to me means that he thought there was a 50-50 chance either way, as far as Blackwell was concerned. If he would have said: “I would not say that,” then I’d say you’re right.

Furthermore, what caused the Coroner to ask his question was an answer Dr Blackwell had given just before: “I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way.

Together with the question the Coroner posed, we can safely conclude that the scarf itself was tight, too. Not tight enough for Blackwell to conclude that it was tight enough to prevent Stride from calling out, but nevertheless tight.

By the way, reading Blackwell’s testimony in conjunction with the opinion he formed, I’ve always imagined Stride’s murderer to grab the loose ends (hanging down from the knot) with his left hand from behind to pull her backwards. That way, the knot would shift to the left while tightening at the same time, just as the scarf would tighten. Obviously, this would happen in the blink of an eye. When the scarf was so tight that the knot stopped shifting, it would cause Stride’s body to rotate to her left.

The best,
Frank

[Adam Went]

Fisherman:

What would be helpful would be if the scarf in question had been preserved somewhere, it would have solved a lot of questions. I'm sort of on the fence about whether the scarf was used to strangle her or not, but what I am sure of is that she was atleast partially strangled before the throat was cut.....

Cut her as she fell? Seriously? In a pitch black dark passageway where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face?

Lynn:

Defense? Are you aware of how fast this all happens? My tests take no more than 2-3 seconds.

Without meaning to be too critical of this test of yours, does it also occur in pitch black darkness on a wet night? What sort of weapon do you use? How short, tall, strong, weak, etc is the attacker? And on it goes. You see, with a test like that, there are too many variables and too many gaps in the known evidence for it to be reliable.

Why hold her down? She is now rotated until nearly facing the ground and the knife is draw across her throat, from left to right, held in his right hand while he holds onto the scarf with the left.

Isn't strangling her first much more simple than making all sorts of assumptions like this? Not to mention that it doesn't really fit the known medical evidence.

Why not do a demo of your own for comparison?

Thanks but no thanks. Doing an experiment like this sounds just a little crazy to me, and in any case, as I said before, there's too many variables for such a test to be accurate.

Cheers,
Adam.

[harry]

Fisherman,
If the scarf was pulled very tight,as you say,and was in that position till taken off after death.would not there be evidence of marking on the back of the neck?None were mentioned.

[lynn cates]

pity

Hello Adam.

"You see, with a test like that, there are too many variables and too many gaps in the known evidence for it to be reliable."

Reliable with respect to what? It merely takes account of the major desiderata in the case--scarf with tightened knot to the left, body position, lack of struggle, cut throat, lack of arterial spray, cachous intact.

"Isn't strangling her first much more simple than making all sorts of assumptions like this?"

It may be simpler. A revolver is simpler yet. But . . .

"Not to mention that it doesn't really fit the known medical evidence."

What evidence? I see no evidence of strangling.

"Doing an experiment like this sounds just a little crazy to me, and in any case, as I said before, there [are] too many variables for such a test to be accurate."

Pity. All that is required is consistency in the experiment. The best way to replace a runner who can do 100 metres in 11 seconds is to do the same in 10.9.

Change your mind?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

" In my opinion, the tightening was incidental to the action and not anything purposeful."

In my opinion too; I reckon it was a spur-of-the-moment thing, a sudden rage, and he went for the nearest useful thing to bring her down. I do not believe he did so with an intention to strangle, just to gain control and cut her. But I will add that the grip on her scarf would have been powerful and choking enough for her to clench her hands as she fell, the cachous remaining in her left ditto throughout that fall. The knot being pulled very tight bears witness to this.

"And welcome back Fisherman!"

Thanks, Mike - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank van Oploo writes:

"I don’t think you’ve understood Blackwell’s answer well, Fish. He wasn’t saying that he thought the scarf was tight enough to prevent her from calling out, he just said he didn’t know, which to me means that he thought there was a 50-50 chance either way, as far as Blackwell was concerned. If he would have said: “I would not say that,” then I’d say you’re right."

You may well be right, Frank - what I did was to add "it was" to the phrase, thinking it would make for good logic, ending up with "I could not say that it was". I would have expected "I could not say" instead of "I could not say that" to gain your interpretation.

" I’ve always imagined Stride’s murderer to grab the loose ends (hanging down from the knot) with his left hand from behind to pull her backwards. That way, the knot would shift to the left while tightening at the same time, just as the scarf would tighten. Obviously, this would happen in the blink of an eye. When the scarf was so tight that the knot stopped shifting, it would cause Stride’s body to rotate to her left."

That is an alternative explanation to my garotting suggestion that lends itself very well to support my scenario... It´s just that A/ I do not think that a "handkerchief scarf" would display any more impressive loose ends hanging down to grab hold by, and B/ I do not think that such an action as you suggest would tighten the knot, actually. The garotting grip does this much more efficient, but then again, it would not leave the scarf very tight afterwards, so it´s anybodys choice here! But grabbing the scarf, choking to some extent and pulling of balance is the bottom line here, that´s for sure!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Adam Went writes:

"Cut her as she fell? Seriously? In a pitch black dark passageway where you couldn't see your hand in front of your face? "

Strange, then, that he could see the scarf, don´t you think? And once he had grabbed that, he could have been blind - he would still be able to locate the neck. It´s ususally where the scarf is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"If the scarf was pulled very tight,as you say,and was in that position till taken off after death.would not there be evidence of marking on the back of the neck?None were mentioned."

I did not say that the scarf was pulled very tight, Harry. I said that THE KNOT was! The scarf was tight, but not even so tight that Blackwell could state that it would have impeded her ability to cry out.
Furthermore, I think, as I have stated before, that the scarf pulling was over in a second or two, and that the power involved was distributed over a fair amount of her neck - all the way around it, in fact. I see no need for any marks to come about in such a case. She was not strangled to death - she was intermittently choked.

The best,
Fisherman