Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

I'm constable!

Can I be the bad cop, Zodiac? Actually no, it's better if we kept changing between good-cop bad-cop routine, so he doesn't figure what the hell's going on.
By the way I've just been promoted into constable ! I just dig casebook, it's apparently the only place in the world where you can sit around all night chin wagging with your buddies and then – pronto, next day you're promoted to CEO! I wish real life were like this...
Now back to my paper on deadline (darn it),

[mariab]

I understand he sometimes comes over to the UK for his research. What if we signalled him to Interpol, as a “red notice“?

[Zodiac]

As a matter of fact, Zodiac, this is the EXACT same thing that went through my mind when I read Tom Wescott's post about garrotting, but I didn't feel like pressuring him to “come clean“... yet

Hi Maria,

Thats ok, we could always do the old "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine on him. I'll apply the pressure, to his Carotid Sinus maybe!

Zodiac.

[Zodiac]

Actually Tom, being a Yank, should be given the Miranda warning

Thanks GM, don't want to let the "gruesome garrotter" get away with it over a jurisdictional matter. US justice of course has the right to be exacted first. We will of course be issuing a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition to the UK, as per the Extradition Act 2003. But only once the US penal system has finished with him!!!

Zodiac.

[The Grave Maurice]

Maybe we should call the cops. There might be a reward.

[mariab]

As a matter of fact, Zodiac, this is the EXACT same thing that went through my mind when I read Tom Wescott's post about garrotting, but I didn't feel like pressuring him to “come clean“... yet

[The Grave Maurice]

Actually Tom, being a Yank, should be given the Miranda warning, which reads something like:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Although, I understand that even this basic protection is now being eroded in some jurisdictions.

[Zodiac]

I'm beginning to get the strong impression that neither Fisherman nor Lynn Cates have garrotted a woman with a scarf before. I don't mean that to be offensive, I just think your inexperience shows in your posts.

Just for the record Tom, exactly how many women have you garrotted, with a scarf or anything else for that matter??? Wait, before you answer that question, I must advise you that: You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.

Zodiac.

[mariab]

Tom, I don't know how you manage without internet at home, but I imagine that it could be liberating (in an I'm-missing-an-important-body-part kind of way! )
I agree with everything you say, besides the part when you associate his grabbing of her scarf when standing with signs of struggle. Not if he immobilized her by choking, which is my own theory and probably the most rational one. But I expect that he might also have used the scarf with the other hand, because in this case it came handy. Still this part of the attack can't officially be proven, due to the fact that we don't have the fresh body to examine anymore, alas. (And I can't believe how morbid I sound saying this.)
I'm relieved to hear you corroborate that Fisherman is inexperienced with garrottes though!
Besides this, it's my last night in Paris (until the fall) and I should be out celebrating, instead I'm stuck at home by 39°C over the roofs of the city finishing up a paper on deadline, stupidly eating lamb curry (with mangoes), which is not the ideal thing to eat in this HEAT, but it was the only thing left in the fridge, and I'd be damned if I wasted it... Please all, wish me luck in finishing this stupid paper soon, cause I'm bored to death right now...

[Tom_Wescott]

There are now are too many posts to respond to since I must leave work and do not have internet at home. But I will add that Stride did not live on Fashion Street, could not have been and was not silenced by her scarf, and did not have a boyfriend other than Michael Kidney - who was not her killer. I have provided much evidence for all of this in my writings, which have been publicly available for some time. The truth is what it is, and all the 'what ifs' in the world ain't gonna change it. The evidence isn't complicated, it's the writers and posters that complicate it. Jack grabbed Stride's scarf solely for the practical purpose of elevating her neck to cut it. He had no reason to grab her scarf while she was standing. That would serve no purpose and I imagine we would have seen signs of struggle.

Regarding Packer, it's quite clear that he saw no couple, just as he told White. He most certainly did not see Stride standing in the rain as he later stated because her clothes were bone dry. There is no doubt Packer was lying to everyone except PS White on that first visit.

I'm beginning to get the strong impression that neither Fisherman nor Lynn Cates have garrotted a woman with a scarf before. I don't mean that to be offensive, I just think your inexperience shows in your posts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Stride's murderer

Fisherman wrote:
I do not dismiss Kidney as Stride´s killer, since I do not think that there is enough in it to do so, but my own bet is that Stride was NOT killed by Kidney, but instead by a clerk-like, sturdy, respectably clad man in dark attire, spotted by PC Smith, Marshall and Schwartz. I suggest that this was a man Stride was associating with, a possible lover. Which, of course, makes the whole thing a domestic WITHOUT Kidney as the killer.
For the most part I do dismiss Kidney as Stride´s killer. In my opinion, the very scarce (and fully circumstantial) evidence against Kidney resumes into this: It kind of lifts up my antennas to see that his dwellings were located so awfully close to the escape route from the murder scene, also, in case it was him who “accidentally“ killed Stride during a dispute, he could have matched the man allegedly spotted by witnesses, distressfully sitting on some stairs just after the murder. And Fisherman in his dissertation offers a good explanation for the blood found on Stride's right hand, which might have been left by someone distressed and amateurish checking her pulse after having “lost it“ and attacked her with a knife over a domestic dispute. I have some difficulty buying that the doctors themselves left this blood while checking her pulse, as Tom Wescott theorizes.
Still, I withhold expressing any opinions before having read about the Le Grand/Batchelor interaction with Kidney in Examiner 2.
On the other side, sorry Fisherman, but your theory of ANOTHER scourned lover besides Kidney looks like too much of a wild goose chase to me. Kinda too complicated.
My own opinion at this (not so deeply informed) point is that Stride was most probably killed by BS, who might have been the Ripper. Which corroborates my opinion that the Ripper was just some local yokel who knew a lot of people and his way around Whitechapel, and could move around naturally and unconspicuously, and not the shrewd, romanticized, silent blitz-attacker that this cases's mythology has turned him into.
PS.: I'm always saying “to each his own“,but I don't think it very cool to call the fact that Stride held to the cachous while being strangled a “sexy“ deed, Fisherman. We shouldn't be disrespectful of the victims on these threads.

[Fisherman]

Maria writes:

"By the way I've read Fisherman's dissertation Piecing it together - A possible scenario of the death of Elizabeth Stride,and for a while I got almost convinced that Stride's murder could have been a domestic affair, but then what severely bothers this theory is BS's physical description, which doesn't match Kidney much: Kidney was neither broad-shouldered nor full-faced."

Hope you enjoyed the dissertation, Maria! Just for the record: I do not dismiss Kidney as Stride´s killer, since I do not think that there is enough in it to do so, but my own bet is that Stride was NOT killed by Kidney, but instead by a clerk-like, sturdy, respectably clad man in dark attire, spotted by PC Smith, Marshall and Schwartz. I suggest that this was a man Stride was associating with, a possible lover. Which, of course, makes the whole thing a domestic WITHOUT Kidney as the killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"it's not an easy thing to strangle someone to unconsciousness or death with your bare hands. It really isn't. Trying to strangle someone with a piece of silk about the size of a hand towel would be a remarkable feat, even for our Jack. "

Thanks for answering, Tom! A few remarks are due here:

To begin with, the scenario I subscribe to does not require any strangling into unconsciousness or death - we are speaking of a matter of the fewest of seconds - the time it took to grip over the scarf, twist it forcefully to the left and pull Stride off balance, falling towards the ground. No more than that. Such a thing would not produce unconsiousness and could not produce death. But it WOULD ensure silence, just as I believe that it would cut off the air supply and the blood passage, quite possibly making Stride clench her fist around the cachous. As the killer cut and let go of his grip, Strides hands loosened again, but at that time she was already on the ground, the cachous still in hand. Surely this must be the most credible - and perhaps even the sexiest, who knows? - explanation to why she did not drop them during her fall. For that is a singularly strange detail, and it takes some explaining!

As for the possibilities to strangle somebody with a scarf of the type Stride was using, we may - of course - first need to admit that the size of the scarf was never recorded! It is called a handkerchief scarf, and therefore, reasonably, it was not very large. But that does not mean that we can in any way allow ourselves to categorically state that it "must" have been of too small a size for killing/strangling/choking. Instead, I would suggest that we actually KNOW that the size was large enough for such a feat, for it reached all the way around Stride´s neck. And what carries great weight, when trying to understand what I am talking about, is that if the scarf had been a longish one, leaving lots of space between neck and cloth, then it would have been harder to use in the way I suggest.
To work optimally, it should only allow for shoving the hand in between neck and scarf, since when the attacker thereafter twisted it violently to the left, the shorter the scarf was, the more pressing power it would produce against the neck. It´s quite simple, as you will appreciate: the looser a garotte is, the more twisting it will take until it strangles you. But if we theorize that Strides neck was 30 centimeter all around, and if the scarf was a few centimeters longer, then the attackers fingers would fill out the void, and if he then twisted his hand 180 degrees to the left, then as much as twice the width of that hand would go lost in scarf length! My own hand is around 8-9 centimeters wide. That means that 16-18 centimeters of the scarf would disappear, and instead of a 30 centimeter neck, Stride would be allowed only 12-14 centimeters.
Of course, this would never have come about; it would have killed her instantly if it did. And it would be physically impossible for anybody to apply the power needed to tighten the scarf by a full 180 degree turning of the hand. But it´s a good pointer to show you that the true potential of such a grip could be absolutely devastating, even with much less a degree of twisting.

"I might also point out that Stride's scarf was pulled tight at the very moment the knife was drawn across her neck, which lends much credence to my theory."

And I will once again point out that the knot was pulled very tight, and that this would mean that if you are correct, then he could not possibly have lifted only her head by the scarf - he must have lifted LOTS of weight for the knot to tighten very hard, meaning that we may have to accept that he lifter her whole upper body by the scarf. Not impossible, of course, but why would he do that?

Finally, the garotting theory does of course also have the scarf very tightly stretched around Stride´s neck, so your scenario does in no way have any upper hand in that respect, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Hi, Lynn. I completely agree that it's hard to corroborate Dr. Barnardo's story, and where Stride slept on the Tuesday/Wednesday before her death. Which one is the current Stride thread that you are referring to? (There are so many of them, I've read through some, but they were old ones. All of them very interesting though.)

[lynn cates]

Lane

Hello Maria. You may indeed be correct that Liz was lying about Fashion st.

It may also be correct that Lane was confused when she said:

"[Coroner] Had you ever seen her before? - I have known her for six or seven months. I used to see her frequently in Fashion-street, where she lived, . . ."

(From the Daily Telegraph)

And it may be that Dr. Barnardo's story is true--he really saw Liz. Of course, it also sounds like quite a few sermons I've heard before--no disrespect intended.

(Perhaps we should not digress from the thread subject. Perhaps we should do this on a Stride thread?)

Cheers.
LC