Was Liz Stride's scarf used by her murderer?

[lynn cates]

passim

Hello Adam.

"Dare I ask how you would carry out such a test to make it as accurate as possible?"

At this stage I wish merely to demonstrate that the concatenation of events I have described is possible.

"How do you know the scarf wasn't moved by the killer after he strangled her to allow easier access to her throat?"

In my scenario, he would need no further access to her throat. She's already dying. Umm, why is there a need to strangle her?

"Likewise, how do you know the body wasn't moved?"

You mean post mortem? Well, that would be indicated by the blood pooling and stream if she had. By the way, wasn't he supposed to be short of time--for mutilations, I mean?

"Variables, lots of them. When I was studying science way back in high school, we got lectured about variables all the time, and whenever conducting an experiment, had to cover all the bases to make sure that an accurate result was reached by combining the evidence at the end of all the tests."

Good! When I had a part time gig teaching high school math and science a few years ago, I insisted upon it.

"Will you be doing the same thing? Because you'd probably have to do the same test dozens and dozens of times to reach such a conclusion - and it doesn't help if you're already biased towards one opinion or the other before you start because then you see the 'evidence' in the light you want to see it in."

The only conclusion I desire to reach is that such a simple throat cutting, first suggested by Dr. Blackwell, actually works and takes 2-3 seconds.

"Hands placed over the top of said scarf which therefore avoided abrasions/bruising?"

How do we know this happened? Why not do the demo and show me?

If the inquest showed strangling, just adduce it and I will see.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Adam Went writes:

"Not strange at all."

Yes, strange, Adam. You write that it was "more or less" pitch dark in the passageway down the yard, and I must press the fact that "less" is what applies here. We know, for example, that Diemschitz saw Stride on the ground. I think that we often tend to exaggerate the darkness surrounding these deeds. If it was impossible to see anything, why would they be there in the first place? A john would want to see how to go about his business, a killer needs to see his victim and a couple of lovers having a disagreement would not take that to a place where absolutely nothing could be seen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

A Brief Reminder

A brief reminder of what Swanson said of the 'scarf' -

[Adam Went]

Lynn:

Well I guess it all just depends on what your own personal view of the method used is....I for one think it's highly unlikely for a number of reasons that she had her throat cut while she was still alive/conscious.

By the way, wasn't he supposed to be short of time--for mutilations, I mean?

Yes, most likely he was interrupted, although according to my theory, he was scared off by movement from inside the IWMEC getting a little too close for comfort as opposed to being interrupted by Louis Diemshitz and his cart, and was already out of the yard before 1 AM.

How do we know this happened? Why not do the demo and show me?

Why all the insisting on a demo? To be completely honest with you, i'm all for experiments, but one like that, in my view, is borderline misogyny, something I will not be part of.

Fisherman:

You write that it was "more or less" pitch dark in the passageway down the yard, and I must press the fact that "less" is what applies here. We know, for example, that Diemschitz saw Stride on the ground.


Actually, Diemshitz knew nothing of the body until his pony shied, and even then he could not make out who or what it was properly until he was more or less face to face with her, holding a match for a fleeting moment.....bearing in mind that he'd already been walking in the dark so his eyes would have been accustomed to the poor light, so we can safely see that yes, the passageway was completely dark, the only small amount of light being thrown on it coming from the IWMEC or neighbouring homes.

Cheers,
Adam.

[harry]

So realy we do not know that the silk handkerchief played any part in Stride's death,and that Blackwell's opinion that she was pulled backwards by it,is just that,an opinion,a possibility perhaps,but not backed by evidence?

[lynn cates]

stuff

Hello Adam.

"Well I guess it all just depends on what your own personal view of the method used is"

You mean how we interpret it? Agreed. We all view things through our own Weltanschauung. Of course, what happened, happened. We canot change it by theorising.

"I for one think it's highly unlikely for a number of reasons that she had her throat cut while she was still alive/conscious."

Could you give me just 1?

(By the way, if the assailant was interrupted, your version is FAR superior to the standard version.)

"Why all the insisting on a demo?"

Because it is one thing to say that lifting 200 lbs is easy--quite another to do it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. (Oops, I'm mixing metaphors.)

"To be completely honest with you, [I]'m all for experiments, but one like that, in my view, is borderline misogyny, something I will not be part of."

Misogyny? Is that Greek for "married man"? Well, I am married.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

opinion

Hello Harry. Opinion? Quite so. Blackwell's opinion was one of 2--each emanating from a medical examiner. Phillips thought she was taken down by the shoulders. Whilst that is possible (I suppose) I fail to see how holding on to the cachous is possible.

If not for those blasted breath fresheners, one could tell me anything about Liz and I'd believe it.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Adam Went writes:

"Actually, Diemshitz knew nothing of the body until his pony shied ..."

... und so weiter, and this is common knowledge, Adam. Thing is, it was so dark that he did not notice the body at first, but then he DID see it and prodded it with his whip to find out what it was.
We have something of a paralel with Nichols, where Cross/Lechmere first thought he was discerning the outlines of a tarpaulin, only to realize when he approached it that it was a woman lying in the street.

There WAS ambient light around, although it may have been very little. But if you can find a scarf in the dark and go ahead with what the killer did, then you are led by your eyesight. And, as I said before, people who want sex, who want to cut throats, who want to discuss things, do not look for total darkness to do so. Little light will do, of course, and a little light there would have been.
As for Diemschitz having walked in the dark, it was said that Berner Street was no worse lit than any other normal East end street.

Now, if you want to persist and claim that there was no light at all at hand, you are welcome to such a stance. Neither of us is going to be able to come up with definitive proof. But I feel common sense is the next best thing around, next to proof ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"So realy we do not know that the silk handkerchief played any part in Stride's death,and that Blackwell's opinion that she was pulled backwards by it,is just that,an opinion,a possibility perhaps,but not backed by evidence?"

What we do know, Harry, is that the knot of the scarf was pulled "very tight". That in itīs turn amounts to evidence that it had been tampered with by somebody else than Stride herself, unless, of course, Stride was in the habit of tightening her scarf knot furiously herself. She would be the first one I ever heard of being into that habit.

As for Blackwell, I would say yes, it was his unproven/unprovable opinion that Stride had been grabbed by the scarf and pulled backwards. Since the proof was not there, it can only be rated as an educated guess, but I would say that it is backed eminently by the evidence, contrary to what you are suggesting.

One of the issues that will have a tremendeous impact of this discussion is of course the knot itself and what type it was, for as you will appreciate, different knots react differently to external power application such as pulling or garotting. If nothing new surfaces, I would say that a double overhand knot seems the safest bet, but I would be very interested to hear if there is any poster about that can inform about other possible scarf knots used during the victorian era.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

slip knot

Hello Fish. Although my wife and I are not, technically, Victorians (almost old enough, though), she uses a slip knot which provides easy putting on/taking off of the scarf.

And when grabbed properly, it works just like a hangman's noose.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hi Lynn, and welcome to the Almost Victorians club!

A slip knot, you say? What would that be - just the one overhand knot? Can the knot itself be tightened hard and remain in that fashion??

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right, Lynn - thank God for Google! I found the slip knot - a knot that I know very well and have tied scores of times, in fact. This is not a kind of knot that lends itself very well to the Stride scenario, Iīd say. You pull the noose tight by holding on to the knot and pulling at one end of the scarf, and the knot is a gliding one, so even if you do tighten the noose, it can just as easily be untightened by grabbing the knot and pulling. I would think that a frictionless type of cloth as silk would make it very hard to give the noose a very hard tightening.
After tightening the noose, our man would have to pull the knot itself very tight, and apart from the difficulty I have seeing him working with the scarf in sequential, differented moves, I myself found it hard to tighten the knot very much.
Finally, this kind of knot would normally be used only on a longish scarf, since you need a bit of cloth to work with before the knot is done, and I do believe that "handkerchief scarf" points to a smaller variant - though just how small is impossible to say.
Ad even more finally, Stride of course came from smple surroundings and led a simple life, so perhaps she never got around to tie more elaborate scarf knots. But thatīs not a given, considering the joy many women take in cloth and clothing ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

knotty boy

Hello Fish. I'm glad you found an answer online.

My wife is not educated but is well able to tie such a knot. We used that in our rehearsals and the results were excellent.

I wonder if "handkerchief' and "scarf" were not just used as synonyms?

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"We used that in our rehearsals and the results were excellent."

Do you mean to say that the scarf was tightened roundthe neck, plus the knot was pulled very tight? If so, by what grip?

"Iwonder if "handkerchief' and "scarf" were not just used as synonyms?"

It was actually called a handkerchief scarf, Lynn, and that, I believe, would point to the size issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

tightening

Hello Fish. Yes, it tightened around the neck.

I merely grabbed one of the ends and pulled.

Cheers.
LC