Was Liz Stride's scarf used by her murderer?

[Fisherman]

Well, Lynn, that is one of the characteristics of this particular knot. But that action would not pull the knot itself very tight - I tried it, and the knot remains rather a loose one. That of course owes to the construction, with the end you are pulling at actually enlargening the small noose built into the knot and thus making it impossible to tighten the knot very firmly.
Otherwise it functions nicely, and if Stride was wearing the knot at the front, pulling from her back with the left hand could well move the knot to the left of the neck. One thing, though - if the scarf was loosely fit on her neck, then the noose would just swiwel instead of gripping the neck - it´s not until you fit it kind of tightly that your suggestion works. But this you will already know, I trust.
Moreover, you must grip the right end to be able to tighten it around the neck - only one of them does the trick.
As for the "handkerchief scarf" I have taken a look at Google once again, and found handkerchief scarves the size of an elephant hide, more or less. If this applied in Victorian days too, we can let go of the idea that the scarf must have been tiny!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

errata

Hello Fish. Yes, only one end works. I presume it was merely by chance that the right end was grabbed, he being interested only in something to grab in order to subdue.

Yes, I can't imagine a small scarf. My wife's collection contains some large ones. And all are large enough to fit around the neck, which is the main point.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

My wife is not educated

If Lynn suddenly disappears, I think we'll know why.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

speed

Hello Tom. Disappear? She is faster than I am. She would head me off.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

I meant she'd MAKE you disappear....Hoffa style.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Lynn:

Could you give me just 1?

I've already given several, so I suggest a re-read of the earlier posts might be in order instead of repeating them.

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

Thanks, i'm glad we agree on that atleast!

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

I don't know whether it's the Greek word for anything, but in the language I know, it basically means a hatred of women/enjoyment of violence. Aside from that, as I've also mentioned before, there are numerous logistical reasons for doubting the findings of such an experiment anyway.

Fisherman:

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.

Prodded it with a whip, STILL wasn't entirely sure, then leant down and lit a match, Fisher. He must have been standing right over the body when he prodded it, musn't he? So I think that's pretty conclusive as far as how poor the light was in the passageway. I suppose the next thing will be people claiming the light was actually good, Louis' eyesight was just really bad....

Now, if you want to persist and claim that there was no light at all at hand, you are welcome to such a stance.

Sometimes I just wish people would actually read posts before they have a rant in response. Allow me to quote myself from a recent post:

Presuming Liz was approached on the street where the light was slightly better, before being taken into the passageway, it would have been clear to the killer that she was wearing a scarf - alternatively, he may have placed an arm around her or on her shoulder or something, as we know happened in a couple of the other murders from the witness descriptions, and therefore felt that she was wearing a scarf. It's different once he was in the passageway and it was really was more or less pitch black darkness.

It's common knowledge that the lighting in the majority of the East End was quite poor at the time.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"Yes, I can't imagine a small scarf."

One thing to keep in mind here, though, is that none of the witnesses describing Stride, described the scarf, so I do not think it would have been too impressive. This is further substantiated by the fact that it was said that there was no blood on her clothing - if the scarf had been a very voluminous one, then resonably it would have been bloodied to some extent.
This, however, is a minor point by now. The simple truth is that we do not know how big it is, but we must allow for anything from a very small scarf up to a reasonably large one, meaning that both the loop around the neck and/or loose ends of the scarf could have been employed by her killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Adam Went:

"Prodded it with a whip, STILL wasn't entirely sure, then leant down and lit a match, Fisher.... So I think that's pretty conclusive as far as how poor the light was in the passageway."

Actually, it is nothing of the sort, Adam. What it IS conclusive of, is that the light was poor - but not HOW poor. That, by the way, is why we are having this increasingly useless discussion; we don´t know.

What I am saying is that if it had been totally dark, or pitch dark as you call it, then Louis Diemschitz would not have seen that there was something to prod with the whip. This is why we actually know that he could see something lying on the ground in the passageway, without, though, being able to see that it was a woman with a cut throat. And that is all I am saying - there was ambient light about (coming, if I recall correctly, from lit windows both in the tenements on the left hand side of the yard as well as from a club window). Now, I have been out in the woods in the middle of cloudy nights with no discernable ambient light around, and I have still been able to make out a good deal. I feel absolutely confident that the man in Dutfields yard did not go by memory and feeling, grabbing hold of Strides scarf (yes, I DID read your post, but awarded it very little value).

Incidentally, my wiew of the showdown in Dutfields Yard has the two main characters spending a number of minutes inside the yard, and if that is true, we must also realize that there would have been good possibilities to adapt to the darkness.
The man who killed Elizabeth Stride did not do so in total darkness. He saw enough to be able to grab her, subdue her and cut her quite efficiently. He used a knife, not a blind man´s cane.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

What kind of a knot it was is self evident,because the neckerchief was tied in a bow.So it was a bow knot.Blackwell states there was a check silk scarf around her neck,with the bow turned to the left and knotted very tightly.It does not follow that because the knot was very tight,the neckerchief itself was tight against the throat and neck.A bow knot is different than a tie knot,which is a kind of slip knot.If one pulls on the bow it tightens the knot.Pulling on the ends will pull out of the bow,and loosen the neckerchief.
Anyone should be able to tie a bow knot.I do it every day when tying the laces of my shoes.There is of course a single bow and a double bow.Blackwell does not state which.

As to how dark it was,a member of the club,leaving by the yard states it was so dark,he had to feel his way along the wall.Blackwell states it was very dark and what he saw was by the aid of a policeman's lamp.Diemschutz only realised it was a body after he struck a match.Morris Eagle said it was rather dark.

[lynn cates]

bows

Hello Harry. Is it at all possible that "bow" and "knot" are being used as synonyms much like "bill" and "peak" are when speaking of caps?

Cheers.
LC

[Adam Went]

Fisherman:

What I am saying is that if it had been totally dark, or pitch dark as you call it, then Louis Diemschitz would not have seen that there was something to prod with the whip.

But his pony shied away, Fisher, which was the first indication to him that there was something amiss.....in any case, he would more or less have had to step on the body if he was walking next to the wall when going to enter through the side door to the club, even if he was without his pony.

As i've already said, his eyes would have been adjusted to the dim light (bear in mind that it was quite a miserable night, there would have been little, if any moonlight/natural light) and yet still could not make out what the object was until he was more or less face to face with Liz and holding a match out......twist the facts all you like, the truth is really quite conclusive.

Also, once again, the killer need not have been going by feel or guesswork in the passageway because it's most likely that he approached Liz in Berner Street itself......I feel as if i'm just repeating myself here.

Cheers,
Adam.

[lynn cates]

Hello Adam. I think our agreement is a conditional. If the assailant in the Stride murder was interrupted, then a club member coming through the door is a more likely reason for it than the cart. But it seems that any interruption theory is based on the assumption that the assailant wished to perform something which was not in fact performed. (Of course, it is not possible, I think, to approach this case without filtering it through some paradigm or other. So I can see why you would think this.)

I still find no medical evidence that you have adduced for strangling. Perhaps I overlooked it. Permit me to offer again that there was no protruding/lacerated tongue. Surely these signs would not be absent in a strangling?

“Misogyny” is indeed of Greek derivation. Its etymology includes “miso” which should be first person singular present active indicative for “I hate” and “genos” which refers to women.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Harry states:

"What kind of a knot it was is self evident,because the neckerchief was tied in a bow.So it was a bow knot.Blackwell states there was a check silk scarf around her neck,with the bow turned to the left and knotted very tightly.It does not follow that because the knot was very tight,the neckerchief itself was tight against the throat and neck."

Well, Harry, since I am not British, I do not have your insights into the British names of knots. But if you are correct, then the garotting grip would function eminently here too: It would pull the knot hard if applied.

As for your suggestion that it "does not follow that because the knot was very tight,the neckerchief itself was tight against the throat and neck", that is exactly what I have been saying all along. Mind you, it was said that the scarf WAS tight against the neck, but just how tight is hard to say.

The best,
Fisherman

PS: Yes, it WAS dark in the yard - but not too dark to afford some eyesight.

[Fisherman]

To Adam:

Totally dark? No.
Dark? Yes.
Let´s leave it there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just a few thing to enlighten (!) my wiew on the relative darkness in Dutfields Yard. The snippets are from the Times recordning of the inquest into Strides death.
”Louis Diemschütz … drove into the yard, and saw that both gates were wide open. It was rather dark there. He drove in as usual, and as he entered the gate his pony shied to the left. Witness looked to the ground on his right, and then saw something lying there, but was unable to distinguish what it was. Witness tried to feel the object with his whip before he got down. He then jumped down and struck a match.”

...and there we go: Diemschitz did see that there was something lying on the ground – no total darkness!

This is Lamb:
”I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H. I went into the gateway of No. 40, Berner-street and saw something dark lying on the right-hand side, close to the gates. I turned my light on and found it was a woman.”

...meaning that he had seen the body by the purportedly non-existent light BEFORE he turned his lamp on.

Let´s check out Spooner now:
”I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate. At that time there were about 15 people in the yard, and they were all standing round the body. The majority of them appeared to be Jews. No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand”

Aha – he saw that it was a woman BEFORE the match was struck! This is further confirmed by his adding:
”Directly I got inside the yard I could see that it was a woman lying on the ground”, as if he was proud of his achievment.

These are all things that go very well to show what I am saying; the light was not there in floods, but there was enough of it to give guidance.
Now, may we please leave this topic?

The best,
Fisherman