Was Liz Stride's scarf used by her murderer?

[Tom_Wescott]

Fish,

As you know, my conclusions are pretty well accepted by most outside of your little band of merry conspiracists. I'm not being snippy, that's just a fact, and it's because I did my homework.

I see you're again isolating sentences and attacking them without taking them in the larger context of how I intended. I think I was pretty clear in my explanation. Stride was turned over while in the yard, so at some point she was laid on her back, yet no substantial amount of mud was found on her back at the mortuary. Thus, she COULD be and WAS laid on her back without attracting much mud. The reason her left side would be saturated is that this portion of her body was laid next to the gutter which presumably would gather more water around it.

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.

Perhaps covering his own butt WAS his working ethics? Who said he abandoned anything? And it's more than a hunch, thank you very much.

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.

Maybe nothing I write will change that, but surely what was written in 1888 to the effect that her body was turned over and her hands open should change your mind? No, wait, if it stands in the way of your preconcieved notions, maybe it won't.

You see, the way I work is I study ALL the data I can get my hands on before attempting to draw conclusions. That's why you've never won an argument against me. In case you were wondering.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"As you know, my conclusions are pretty well accepted by most outside of your little band of merry conspiracists. I'm not being snippy, that's just a fact, and it's because I did my homework."

Aha! So itīs a well known fact that most Ripperologists accept that Stride was laid down on her back by Jack the Ripper, and the very same Ripperologists agree that the fact that her jacket was left unmuddied on the back does not implicate that she was always on her left side in the yard?

Unexperienced as I am, I must say this has escaped me totally. Well then, can I please join your merry band and abandon my unworthy convictions...?

Seriously, Tom, this is not something you are trying to pass off as an argument, is it? It would have come pretty close to the "ten thousand flies canīt be wrong" argument had it been correct, but it is not - every Ripperologist I have ever heard of (but for one) accept that the mud on Strides jacket implicates that she was on her left side in the yard from beginning to end.

"no substantial amount of mud was found on her back at the mortuary"

NO amount at all was EVER mentioned on her back, Tom - not the tiniest of scraps of mud. Nothing, nada, rien, keines. Or was there an "unsubstantial" amount there - as you seem to imply?

"Perhaps covering his own butt WAS his working ethics? Who said he abandoned anything? And it's more than a hunch, thank you very much."

But WHERE IS THE SUBSTANTIATION?? What signs do we have of Blackwell being dishonest, in this case or in any other case for that matter??? There is nothing in that way on record anywhere, Tom. Nothing whatsoever. Show the man some respect, thatīs what I say.

"Maybe nothing I write will change that, but surely what was written in 1888 to the effect that her body was turned over and her hands open should change your mind? No, wait, if it stands in the way of your preconcieved notions, maybe it won't."

There is nothing preconcevied in my wiew, Tom. I think the evidence is very much in favour of Stride being somebody elseīs but Jacks, but whenever evidence pops up to change my mind, I will do so. I once believed in Stride being Jacks third, so I am no more preconceived than that.

"You see, the way I work is I study ALL the data I can get my hands on before attempting to draw conclusions."

As do I.

"That's why you've never won an argument against me. In case you were wondering."

No, I am not wondering. I predict that if you in the future decide that Jack was an alien from Pluto that arrived by UFO, and if I would have the audacity to argue against it, you would come out of that argument too thinking you had won it, stauntly believing that all the world of Ripperology was standing firmly behind you, laughing at my silly objections.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

"As you know, my conclusions are pretty well accepted by most outside of your little band of merry conspiracists. I'm not being snippy, that's just a fact, and it's because I did my homework."

Aha! So itīs a well known fact that most Ripperologists accept that Stride was laid down on her back by Jack the Ripper, and the very same Ripperologists agree that the fact that her Jacket was left unmuddied on the back does not imply that she was always on her left side in the yard?

AGAIN you go with taking my words out of context! You wrote that you've read all my published works and that you don't agree with my conclusions. Therefore, MY statement was solely in reference to my published conclusions and NOT what we're currently discussing, which should be obvious.

And the reason you concluded that Stride was not a Ripper victim is the same reason as everyone else - you bought all the bullcrap published in the last 20 years. Virtually every Ripper book has been horribly flawed in its treatment of the Stride case.

You say there's absolutely nothing in the written record to suggest Stride had been rolled over. I say there is, and yet you insist there isn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"AGAIN you go with taking my words out of context! You wrote that you've read all my published works and that you don't agree with my conclusions. Therefore, MY statement was solely in reference to my published conclusions and NOT what we're currently discussing, which should be obvious."

To begin with, I wrote that I had read MOST of what you have written, not all of it. But if you are saying that you admit that only the fewest would agree with your deductions on the mud and Strides position in the yard, I could not be happier for you.

"the reason you concluded that Stride was not a Ripper victim is the same reason as everyone else - you bought all the bullcrap published in the last 20 years. Virtually every Ripper book has been horribly flawed in its treatment of the Stride case."

Itīs a sad thing that uncovered new material and added knowledge can change old convictions, but there you are. A sign of the times, I guess. People would have been better informed before all of that!
Just pulling your leg, Tom, but I really feel that nostalgia is not the way to go about research.

"You say there's absolutely nothing in the written record to suggest Stride had been rolled over. I say there is, and yet you insist there isn't."

What I am saying, Tom, is that there is no genuine reason to believe that she was rolled and tossed about in that yard. Regardless of the fact that the information does not look the same in all papers, the inquest files represent the single most important information, and there is nothing in it to make me change my mind.
There are many things on record about Strides position in the papers that show us that some of the information quite simply must be wrong. One cannot just pick and choose whatever one feels is useful. Unless there is any real reason to rewrite the version in the inquest files, such things are better avoided.

I make for a less colourful Ripperologist than you do, Tom, letīs just say that. I never come up with conspiracy theories, I fail to see why doctors would lie about matters in a high-profile case like this and I generally avoid biting on sensationalist hooks. That is how I work, and therefore I smile somewhat when you speak of my "little band of merry conspiracists", whoever that would be. Nobody could be further away from such things than I, Tom, and to regard Stride as a non-Jack victim (or to disagree with you, for that matter) is actually not to "conspire". And conspire to what, exactly...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Itīs a sad thing that uncovered new material and added knowledge can change old convictions, but there you are.

Before I comment, did you word that properly?

What I am saying, Tom, is that there is no genuine reason to believe that she was rolled and tossed about in that yard.

Tossed? I should hope not. Turned over? Yes there is, you crazy Swede. Go look and see.

You're a good guy, Fish, and I like you. But I think you're even more stubbord than I am (though thankfully less stubborn that Mike Richards).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Before I comment, did you word that properly?"

Yeps. I was being ironic, in case you did not notice.

"Tossed? I should hope not. Turned over? Yes there is, you crazy Swede. Go look and see."

Been there, done that, seen that - does not make me change my mind on this point, though.

"You're a good guy, Fish, and I like you. But I think you're even more stubbord than I am"

Meaning you are giving way? Not very likely, is it?

Anyhow, I enjoy swapping punches with you too, and I much respect your detailed knowledge of the case. If we all agreed on everything it would be a sad world to live in (which wonīt stop me from telling you that you really ought to agree with me on the Stride case).

Take care,
Fisherman

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Just quietly, I think i'm starting to see a bit of Mike "Perry Mason" Richards in Fisherman, don't you think? Oh dear....

Lynn:

There does not necessarily have to be a protruding tongue to signify strangulation - I'm no doctor but I am aware that it varies from case to case. Liz's murder is actually somewhat similar to that of Rose Mylett, where it was considered that she was probably strangled by her velvet collar, despite the fact that there were no other conclusive signs of strangulation.

Also, instinctively, if the killer had gone for Liz's throat with the knife instead of strangling her first, Liz would have thrown her hands up to her face - hence dropping the cachous which were, infact, found clenched in her hand....

Not to mention that the blood which I've talked about before, nor the fact that the cut was a jagged one rather than the clean one you'd expect if the theories mentioned on here were accurate, nor the darkness in the passageway....

The list goes on. At the end of the day, it can be summed up with two simple words: common sense.

Cheers,
Adam.

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Adam. When one's throat is suddenly constricted, the fists clench. I believe it's an automatic reaction.

The blood? It would spurt towards the ground. (Hopefully the demo will show you what I mean.)

What does the jagged cut indicate? If she had her head back and the knife drawn across the throat, THAT would be clean. But rotated and with neck facing the ground, it would be QUITE jagged.

Common sense? I don't see it. Show me with a demo?

Cheers.
LC

[The Grave Maurice]

But I think you're even more stubbord than I am....

We're talking about the Fisherman here. You must have meant to type "starboard".

[harry]

Lynn,
In a bow knot,you must have both.The act of making the bow creates the knot.The bow is mainly for a decorative appearance.
Fisherman,
It depends on how tight the material is pulled while making the initial crossover.In Stride's case,pulling too tight,then walking around all that evening,would have been damned uncomfortable,to say the least. I would say it would have been firm to loose to start with.That the bow was under the left jaw,is no indication it was not that way before entering the yard,or that it was not moved before Maxwell obseved it.
Of course even if loose,the killer could have twisted it very tight,but that would have left some mark on the neck.Pulling on the bow would only have tightened the knot.Pulling on the loose ends would unravel the knot.

The position of the body when examined by Maxwell,was lying in what is sometimes referred to as the 'Jacknife' position.In Stride's case on the left side facing the wall,with knees drawn up,almost or actually touching the wall.Head not qite touching the wall.This leads me to assume that the killer attacked from the rear,as it would have been extremely difficult to have placed the body in the position it was found,if both had been face to face.An experiment would show why.It might explain also the blood on the back of Stride's hand.With the knife already in the killers right hand,he jerks with the left on the neckerchief or jacket collar simultaneously(as Maxwell said)cutting the throat.Stride instinctively raises her right hand,and the knife now bloodied contacts the back of the hand.The killers right hand,still clenched around the knife,helps support the sagging body,which is lowered to the ground in position found.Time taken?seven or eight seconds at the most.

[Fisherman]

Adam Went writes:

"Just quietly, I think i'm starting to see a bit of Mike "Perry Mason" Richards in Fisherman, don't you think?"

Whatever problems you have concerning me and my wiews, Adam, I would be very grateful if you had the decency to deal directly with me about it. It is by far the most honest way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"In Stride's case,pulling too tight,then walking around all that evening,would have been damned uncomfortable,to say the least. I would say it would have been firm to loose to start with."

This, Harry, is something we can only speculate about. There is, and cannot be, any knowing. And I still say that a bow-knot will not be able to produce both a tightening around the neck AND a hard pulled knot. If you pull at one of the ends, it comes loose, and if you pull at the bow itself, you may tighten the knot somewhat but it wonīt pull the noose around the neck at all - on the contrary, it will loosen it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"The position of the body when examined by Maxwell,was lying in what is sometimes referred to as the 'Jacknife' position.In Stride's case on the left side facing the wall,with knees drawn up,almost or actually touching the wall.Head not qite touching the wall.This leads me to assume that the killer attacked from the rear,as it would have been extremely difficult to have placed the body in the position it was found,if both had been face to face.An experiment would show why.It might explain also the blood on the back of Stride's hand.With the knife already in the killers right hand,he jerks with the left on the neckerchief or jacket collar simultaneously(as Maxwell said)cutting the throat.Stride instinctively raises her right hand,and the knife now bloodied contacts the back of the hand.The killers right hand,still clenched around the knife,helps support the sagging body,which is lowered to the ground in position found.Time taken?seven or eight seconds at the most."

A few good points here, Harry; I absolutely agree that the killer attacked from the rear, and that he used a grip on the scarf to do so. As for the moment she was cut, though, I think that happened quiteclose to the ground, and not while she was standing up - the absense of any blood on her clothes would be a good pointer to this, just as the absense of arterial spray on the ground would speak for the same.

And the bloodied right hand, Harry! To begin with, if it came into contact with the knife, then it would have been smeared, yes. But the back of the hand had on it oblong dots! Also, the inside of the wrist was bloodied too, and how that could be explained by any contact with the knife, I do not know. It would be either or, if you are correct, Harry. Not both sides!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

For Tom:

Since I do not wish to place words in your mouth, Tom, I would like you to take a look at this and tell me if I am correct.

You think that Stride may have fainted, more or less in the arms of the killer, and that he subsequently laid her "gently down", as witnessed by PC Lamb.

You think that the killer used her scarf in order to lift her head from the ground, to facilitate for a cut to the neck. You mean that this action was what pulled the knot of the scarf tight.

You write:
“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.”

Okay. So the killer did not lay her gently down in the position Lamb described, at least not from the outset. He puts her on her back instead. At this point she would be lying a fair distance out from the wall, and there would be nothing stopping him from tilting her head to her left to cut her, avoiding to get stained. The neck would have been very accessible.
Instead, you opt for the solution that he first laid her on her back, and then positioned himself at her side. He then rolled her over to her left, almost all the way in to the wall, in such a fashion that her left arm elbow was bent and she ended up lying on her own upper arm. By now, her face and neck was quite close to the wall, making it a very awkward task to cut the neck as she lay. To facilitate for this, he lifts her head up by the scarf, shoves his knife in under her neck and cuts. During this whole process, she gets her jacket plastered with mud on her left side, and she gets the left side of her head, hair and face stained with mud, but no mud sticks to the back of the jacket. Somewhere in the process, her legs are also drawn up, "as if in pain" as it was described. Did the killer do this too? It could not have come about by rolling her over.

Would you say that this is a fair presentation of your stance, or is there something that needs to be added or changed?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

agreement

Hello Harry.

"In a bow knot,you must have both.The act of making the bow creates the knot.The bow is mainly for a decorative appearance."

Quite right. I am suggesting, however, that "bow" is being used as a synonym for "knot"--in the same way that I erroneously use "knit" for "crochet" (and consequently receive a sharp rebuke from my wife!).

You are, I think, dead on target when you claim the assailant was at Liz's rear. And the rest of your reenactment has a good deal to commend it. I wish only that more of us would try to reconstruct EACH of these murders with respect to positions, etc. One might find it quite revealing.

Cheers.
LC