Was Liz Stride's scarf used by her murderer?

[ChrisGeorge]

Adam Went writes:

"According to some comments on the scarf that i've read, it was supposedly not thick/strong enough to be used by itself to strangle Liz"

A chequered silk scarf. That is all we know about the garment in question. We do not have itīs size, itīs thickness, itīs age etcetera. But we DO have the knowledge that a thin silk string is lethal in the hands of a garotter. Make of that what you want, Adam! Those who say that the scarf was not strong enough to kill with may need to substantiat that wiew, and doing so they may need to take a look at, for example, how many women have been strangled with their own nylon pantyhoses, a much weaker and thinner and more frail material. But you can garotte a gorilla with it.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes but if the scarf was used as a garotte presumably the doctors would be able to tell that and would have remarked upon it. The silk might have distorted in being pulled tight and there would be a mark on the neck.

Chris

[lynn cates]

hanky

Hello Fish. Does this snippet from Lloyd's Weekly May, 6, 1888 help put hanky size into perspective?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

What kind of a knot it was is self evident,because the neckerchief was tied in a bow.So it was a bow knot.

A little bit of common sense and good research from Mann the man. Thanks, Harry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Does this snippet from Lloyd's Weekly May, 6, 1888 help put hanky size into perspective?"

You should have seen his nose, Lynn ... Made Jimmy Durante look like a pekinese dog!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Chris George:

"if the scarf was used as a garotte presumably the doctors would be able to tell that and would have remarked upon it. The silk might have distorted in being pulled tight and there would be a mark on the neck."

Iīll go over this again, Chris:

Itīs not as if I think that the garotting grip was what killed Stride; my contention is that it was only applied for the fewest of seconds - the time it took to bring Stride out of balance and fall to the ground. Since she held on to the cachous throughout that fall, the intermittent choking applied may well have been quite violent, of course, making her clench her fists.

As for the mark on the neck, it must be recognised that garotting will make use of the full length of the scarf encirkling the neck. Thus the pressure applied will be distributed over a maximum area, as opposed to - for example - the suggestion of grabbing hold of the scarf with one hand, putting the other hand in Strides back and then pulling hard on the scarf. In such a case, only the front portion of the neck would be pressurized. Therefore, I feel that the suggestion of a garotting move would work better than most other suggestions.

As for what would happen to the scarf, we KNOW that the knot was pulled very tight, without any remark coming forth from the police or doctors that this caused any distortion in the silk. Also, we do not know in what condition the scarf was. It may well have been old and worn many times. Plus, as you will know from bitter tie-knotting memories, if you do not get the knot where you want it from the outset, you re-tie, and then the cloth of the garment will look all wrinkled close to the knot.

No, the real drawback with a suggestion of a garotting grip is another thing; once applied, it will tighten the knot by pulling the cloth out of the knot. Thus it will tighten the knot - but widen the noose around the neck. Therefore, I am not quite comfortable with the mentioning of that noose ALSO being tightened to some extent. But, as I have stated before, if the scarf was sitting tight around the neck from the beginning, and if the knot was rather tight before the assault, then nothing much would happen to the noose by a garotting grip. It would however NOT tighten the noose around the neck any further, but instead widen it somewhat.

I would gratefully accept any other bid on the knot front. Anybody who has knowledge of a knot that could reasonably have been used on a scarf by a Victorian woman in the East end, a knot that may be pulled on with the result that BOTH the noose around the neck and the knot itself are tightened, the knot very much so? I know of no such knot myself, at least not one that would have worked as a scarf-knot.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom! I have been giving your suggestion of a possible fainting on Strides behalf in the yard some thought, and I have come up with the conclusion that there is actually very useful evidence going against such a proposition.

Itīs in Strides arms: She was found, and correct me if I am wrong here, resting on the upper part of her left arm, the lower part being bent at the elbow and stretched out in front of her, cachous in hand, and the right arm was lying over her lower chest/upper belly.

Have you ever been a boxer, Tom? I once was (early Jura period ...), and one thing that was always hotly debated was the Swedish amateur boxing helmet. It was padded over the forehead to soak up blows, but it was open at the back of the head. And if you were knocked senseless, you would normally fall backwards, banging the unprotected back of your head in the canvas, a dangerous thing.
Of course, people who fall backwards will normally fend off their fall with the arms, but if you are knocked out cold, the arms fall down along your sides like deflated life rafts and you end up lying with them stretched at an approximate 45 degree angle to your body. You surrender yourself into the scientifically established arms of Isaac Newton, so to speak.

By now you will know what Iīm getting at: Strides arms would have gone deflated too if she had fainted - and they would reasonably NOT have ended up where they were.

Now, change the perspective, and imagine somebody grabbing her from behind, sending her into a fall backwards but rotating to her left. Where would she place her arms and hands to fend off the fall?
Exactly, she would bend her left arm at the elbow and stretch the hand towards the ground underneath her. And she would pull her upper arm slightly backwards during that fall to allow for the hand to hit the ground first.
Then she would send her right arm to the left across her chest, allowing for that hand also to hit the ground first.

The result? She would end up lying on her own upper left arm, with the lower part of the arm protruding from the body, whereas her right arm would come to rest over her chest or belly. Intriguing, is it not, that this was exactly how she was found?

And there is a little bit more; you - and others - have on occasions stated that if she actually fended a fall off with her hands, then it is strange that no abrasions on her palms were mentioned.
I agree with this.
But what if she actually never struck the ground forcefully, because her killer held on to the scarf and thus mildened the fall? He held on, he cut and he let go, giving the impression that she had been "gently laid down", suffering no damage to her hands?

Covers things pretty neatly, the way I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Itīs in Strides arms: She was found, and correct me if I am wrong here, resting on the upper part of her left arm, the lower part being bent at the elbow and stretched out in front of her, cachous in hand, and the right arm was lying over her lower chest/upper belly.

I believe you're describing how she was found by Dr. Phillips. But keep in mind that prior to this she was handled by Edward Spooner, turned over and back again by Edward Johnston, and examined by Blackwell, so of course we can't assume this was the position she was left in by her killer, although it was probably something similar.

I don't imagine her killer laid her down on her side first, but on her back. After positioning himself on the ground he would naturally have turned her to her side to cut her throat. This would explain the positioning of her arms, assuming the position Phillips describes is anything like her original position.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

I think, Tom, that Johnston said at the inquest "I left the body precisely as I found it". I certainly havent seen it mentioned anywhere that he "turned her over and back again" and I do not know where you got that from, unless it is an idea of your own. You are probably referring to his unbuttoning of her dress at the chest, but the man testifies very clearly that either he managed this without turning her over, or - if she was moved in any way - he put her back in the exact same position in which she was found.
He also testifies that the people standing around Stride as he arrived did NOT touch her.

"I don't imagine her killer laid her down on her side first, but on her back."

Mmm, Tom - but that would owe to the fact that you prefer Jack as the killer, would it not? Besides, where is the mud on her clothes supporting this wiew? There was only mud on her left side (apart from a smallish portion on the right side). Not a single stain of mud was ever mentioned at her back, effectively ruling out such a suggestion, the way I see it.

I see no reason at all to accept that she was moved in any way. Palpating for the pulse and picking with the cachous does in no way add up to any such thing. Nor need the unbuttoning do so. There may well have been room to stretch himself in over her and do it, leaving her exactly as he found her - as he states very clearly.

And Spooner? "I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that." ...was what he said. He touched her under her chin, that was all.

I know that you push the theory that she was moved very hard - but is there any evidence at all for such a wiew, Tom? Does anybody at any time say anything to the effect that she was moved? I think not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:
"After positioning himself on the ground he would naturally have turned her to her side to cut her throat. This would explain the positioning of her arms"

It would not, Iīm afraid - at least not if the arms were stretched out the way they become when somebody faints and falls senseless to the ground. If this was the case, how did both arms get bent at the elbows? Reasonably, if your scenario is tried, she would have been rolled up on a stretched-out left arm, and the right arm would have hung behind her, not in front!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

think, Tom, that Johnston said at the inquest "I left the body precisely as I found it". I certainly havent seen it mentioned anywhere that he "turned her over and back again" and I do not know where you got that from

The witnesses testified to it. Diemschitz talked about him turning her over and opening her hands. There's no question that Johnston acted well outside of his capacity as assistant and Blackwell did his best to cover for him. Johnston would have had no choice but to say he didn't move the body. Hence the contradiction over the cachous between Blackwell and Phillips. I'm sure it was Johnston who spilled the cachous from Stride's hand and Blackwell who played clean-up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

I'm not suggesting that Stride fainted and fell directly to the ground. I would go with the physicians and officers who said she was laid down. You're posting to much for me to catch up, so I'm probably not going to be able to address all your points.

As for the lack of mud on her back, perhaps there just wasn't mud there. We know for a fact that she WAS laid out on her back for sure after Blackwell and Phillips got there and remained in that position for some time until she was taken inside the club. Her clothes weren't examined until later (except for what they could feel by touch, such as dryness), and any little amount of mud on her back could not be said to have gotten there before or after her discovery.

Regarding Spooner, Johnston, Blackwell, etc., I'm not suggesting they picked her body up and danced with it, but all those hands touching this and moving that will not leave the body in the same position it was originally found. Even Dr. Phillips stated that his description was based on the assumption that the body had not been moved. But it had been.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"The witnesses testified to it. Diemschitz talked about him turning her over and opening her hands. There's no question that Johnston acted well outside of his capacity as assistant and Blackwell did his best to cover for him. Johnston would have had no choice but to say he didn't move the body. Hence the contradiction over the cachous between Blackwell and Phillips. I'm sure it was Johnston who spilled the cachous from Stride's hand and Blackwell who played clean-up."

The only thing Diemschitz says at the inquest was about Spooner:

"A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat."

That would tally with what Spooner said himself - he touched Stride under her chin. As for any suggestions that the doctors turned Stride over, nothing such was said at the inquest, which is why I ask you where you have this information from?

Once again, I would also like to know why no mud adhered to her clothing at the back - if she ever lay on it.

As for your being sure of a cover-up on behalf of the doctorīs - well, what can I say? I for one would never say that I was "sure" about something where no certainty could be reached - if i DID say such things, though, I would probably start out by stating that I am sure that she never fainted, that she did not have her head lifted by the scarf and the neck subsequentially cut, and that the doctors came clean in each and every instance. But since I cannot be absolutely sure, I do not state that I am so either.
One thing though: I AM sure that she was not on her back in the yard - the state of her clothing proves that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Everything I say is well-documented. There is certainly more documentation available than the inquest reports, and then you must read the reports from ALL the papers as I have done.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

just a general reply to some of the issues discussed in this thread:

stride could have moved/rolled (on her own)after her throat was cut and before Diemschutz found her.

The location of the mud found on her clothes could correspond to where there was mud on the ground, irrespective of her body position(or movement).

the cachous could have remained in her hand, regardless of the the method which she was assualted and murdered, because it could have gotten lodged between fingers and/or stuck to the hand do to dampness (from the rain, perspiration, etc).
or perhaps even in the act of being assaulted said cachous was perceived by Stride to be so valuable to her that she did not want to drop it and/or in the act of defending herself she clenched her fist around it while forming a fist to punch at her assailant.

The scarf may or may not have been used to strangle Stride but if both knot and scarf where both tight when the body was found i would tend to think not as the scarf would have been stretched (or ripped) to the point of non tightness by the force of pulling on it.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Tom, I HAVE read heaps of material in the papers, just as I have read most of the things you have written. And as I have stated before, there often lies much investigation behind your work - but your deductions sometimes leave a lot to be asked for, at least to my mind.
Your handling of the mud issue belongs to that category, Iīm afraid. You write:

"As for the lack of mud on her back, perhaps there just wasn't mud there."

Why the "perhaps", Tom? The only mud around on the jacket - apart from a smallish portion on the right side - was on the left side, which was "well plastered with mud". That of course means that there was a lot of mud on the left side of the jacket, not just a little. We also know that the left side of the head and the hair were strewn with mud, as were parts of the face.

Now, why would Phillips record such a thing, unless he thought it essential to understand what had happened to Stride? Why would he leave out any mud on the back, if there was ever any? To cover Johnstons behind? If you can be "sure" that Blackwell covered for Johnston, and that Phillips didnīt come clear at the inquest, covering for Johnston having bloodied Strides right hand, then why not buy the whole package and simply state that Phillips was lying about the jacket too, to save the perpetrator Johnston from further embarrassment?

And how can you even suggest that a ground that plastered the jacket with mud on the left side would leave the back nice and clean even if Stride was rolling around on it? How do such things come about, Tom?

"Everything I say is well-documented."

Frankly, it is not. When you say that you are sure that Blackwell abandoned his working ethics and his responsibility in the most high profile murder case of all time, then what you say is everything but "well-documented". It is calling having a hunch being "sure", nothing else.

When you claim that the blood on Strides right hand must have been transferred by Johnston, itīs the exact same thing.

When you claim that Phillips joined Blackwell in giving up his ethics by covering for Johnston at the inquest, you are simply telling stories with no documentation, no substantiation and no respect whatsoever behind them. Please prove me wrong if I am unfair to you, Tom!

And when you are saying that Stride was moved, you are stretching a touch under the chin, a palpation of the pulse, the unbuttoning of a dress and the cachous issue to something that flies in the face of all of the rest of the documentation. None of the descriptions given by the main witnesses state or imply that Stride was ever lying in another position than the one described by the doctors, and there was never any reason to believe that she did. And nothing you have ever written or will ever write is going to change that, Tom.

The best,
Fisherman