Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

Stride's murder

Lynn, I think that Stride lied about allegedly living on Fashion Street. Also there's a possibility that she spent Tuesday and Wednesday night in Dr. Barnardo's mission. Wescott discusses this in Examiner 1.
Tom wrote:
It's the second best Stride essay ever written. And why on earth wouldn't you be interested in reading it?
Yesterday you said it was the third best ever! How do you calculate these records? (Do you have a Top 40 of Ripperological articles?! ) Obviously I was joking when I said I'm not interested in reading it. But since I've already ordered a couple of Ripper Notes, I'm afraid I can't afford to order them all. I'll definitely read it if you'd be willing to send it to me as a PDF or Word document (as Supe/Don has done with an article of his which also discusses his cat, Suede!).
Tom wrote:
They showed up after death. I covered this. It's perimortem bruising. Bruises that show up AFTER death must have been left shortly before, during, or shortly after death.
Did you check this with a medical reference, Tom? Tom, I don't have a problem with believing in perimortem or postmortem bruises, my problem is that bruises don't form but after many hours after being inflicted. So if Stride's bruises on her shoulders were inflicted by BS, then I can only accept that they started to appear postmortem, at the morgue. We really have to consult a medical examiner experienced in forensics on this. I've repeatedly asked my mom,who's a dentist (i.e. not a specialist), and she could explain the physical procedure of bruising, but had no clue why they take so long to form (esp. on me).

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.

Tom wrote:
Is this the 'point' Fisherman had that I was asked to reply to? It's more of a question than a point. Or do I have the wrong thing? To elaborate on what I said, I simply mean that 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.
It's not too difficult to strangle someone manually if you use first a stranglehold/choke with one arm, then tighten the scarf with the other. Don't make me conduct any more experiments on this though (on my coat hanger!), it was creepy enough when I tried it the first time.
Also, I never said that Stride was dead when she hit the ground. Most probably it was the knife that finished her off. If you die by strangulation, it's also visible in hemorrhagies inside your eyes and on your tongue, which you bite as you get a seizure, and Liz didn't bit her tongue. (The seizure is also visible in an examination of the brain, but I very much doubt that 1888 doctors did those.)

Tom wrote:
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.
Sure, I completely agree with you that the scarf was pulled tight at the very moment the knife was drawn across her neck. But the problem is that you don't consider that the scarf might have been pulled tight already BEFORE the attack with the knife, as she was standing. It's exactly as I said in my post of late last night: Unless there are witnesses (like in the BS attack), we can only make secure assumptions about what happened at the end of the assault, not in the beginning, since we only have the evidence of the body in situ to rely on.

[lynn cates]

man

Hello Tom.

"These same women say that they knew of only one man in Stride's life, that being Kidney, so it was Kidney they believed she left on Thursday. No other man."

Absolutely. They knew of no other. Indeed, one testified that she saw the man (Michael) on Sunday (I presume at the mortuary). They likely knew Michael well.

But that is not my point. Yes, Liz left Michael Tuesay. Yes, Liz came back to #32 to reside on Thursday. But I am exploring the faint possibility that Liz spoke truly about leaving a man, after having words with him, on Thursday.

And my search begins on Fashion st.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Earlier on this thread, you stated that it would be impossible to strangle a woman garotting her with a neckerchief silk scarf like the one Stride was wearing. I would very much like you to elaborate on that!

Is this the 'point' Fisherman had that I was asked to reply to? It's more of a question than a point. Or do I have the wrong thing? To elaborate on what I said, I simply mean that 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.

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. Again, when taking everything into consideration, the only practical conclusion is that the Ripper used Stride's scarf to lift her neck to allow access for his knife. I don't see why this is so difficult for some to grasp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Tom,

In light of my post and Caz's (prior to yours), I think that it is quite significant that none of these women mentioned anyone other than Kidney. You would expect them to say "you know, now that I think about it, there was this one guy..."

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

and I don't think I'm terribly interested to read Tom's Berner Street Mystery Part 2 (what's Part 1, by the way?!)

It's the second best Stride essay ever written. And why on earth wouldn't you be interested in reading it?

I think you should really answer Fisherman's repeated inquest about a certain checkered hankerchief's utility as a murder weapon, because I really think Fisherman has a point here

I'll comment when I've read it, which I should do shortly.

Somehow I don't believe that Stride would have gotten bruises so quickly after BS pushed her around.

She didn't. They showed up after death. I covered this. It's perimortem bruising. Bruises that show up AFTER death must have been left shortly before, during, or shortly after death.

that Tanner and Lane CLAIMED she had left a man on Thursday (you think they were mistaken, I am not convinced)

These same women say that they knew of only one man in Stride's life, that being Kidney, so it was Kidney they believed she left on Thursday. No other man.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

You are right. The old chicken and the egg thing comes into play with Packer. I suspect Mary's neighbors and the cry of Oh Murder fall into the same category. Interestingly though, we don't see the same effect when the police questioned Liz's friends and neighbors as to whether they knew of anyone in her life who might have wanted to do her harm.

c.d.

[caz]

The Grand Effect

Hi All,

Before I start, this is not an argument for Packer being a completely truthful witness who sold grapes to Jack for Liz, but something has puzzled me for ages and I'm still no clearer in my mind about it, so I'd like to get it off my chest.

If we assume Packer had any customers at all that night before closing up, why would he have had any reason to suspect that one of them might go on to commit murder, or that another might end up dead in Dutfield's Yard? What I'm getting at is, when he was formally asked afterwards the usual: "Did you see or hear anything suspicious?" (ie anything potentially connected with the murder), and he replied in the negative, would he have thought to mention any of his supposedly law-abiding customers, let alone single out one particular man who, as far as Packer was concerned, may simply have been treating a woman friend to some fruit or whatever, with no apparent malice in mind?

Enter our pair of amateurish private dicks (and I use the term advisedly), reassuring Packer that he'd get a bit of pocket money for his trouble, and suddenly the question was likely to have become a leading one: "Look pal, think back to all your customers. What can you tell us about them, and did any of the men have a bit of ruff-fluff in tow?"

"Come to think of it there was this couple... etc etc."

"Would you know the woman again if you saw her on the slab?"

"As a matter of fact I probably would, guv. When she cackled her railings were in a right old two-and-eight. You reckon he done her in then in the yard? I thought nothing of it at the time and the copper never asked nothing about it neither."

"Sorted."

As you see, I'm not suggesting that Packer's 'evidence' can be considered credible, considering how it was induced. I'm merely wondering whether he contradicted himself between accounts to the extent that he has been accused of doing. Much might depend on what Packer was asked and what he thought was relevant to include in his answers.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

C.D. wrote:
{...}posts seems to focus on the direction Liz was facing, particularly if it indicates that Liz might have been in the process of leaving the yard. I don't really see how we can draw a conclusion one way or another. Even if she had her back to Jack or was in the process of leaving the yard, would not his calling out to her have turned her around?
Completely agree with you on this, C.D. I think it's irresponsible conjecture to attempt to make assumptions about where everyone was standing and which way they were looking when the assault began, unless we have witnesses (as with Stride and BS). We can make more secure assumptions about what happened at the end of the assault, since we have the evidence of the body in situ. Thus I really think it's an exercice in futility to try to decide if Stride was facing the wall or not when the assault started. (But I'm sure that a lot of Ripperologists will want to attack me for saying this, esp. those who are interested in figuring every single detail out. I'm just saying that some details are not possible to be cleared anymore.)
And, Lynn, please don't think that I meant you about “irresponsible conjectures“, I was just speaking generally!
Kind regards,
Maria

[lynn cates]

demo

Hello CD. It might be best to try to construct a scenario to account for all the applicable items.

There is an excellent thread for this dealing with Liz's scarf. I am slightly uncomfortable spending a good deal of time about Liz on this thread as she is only tangential to it.

Perhaps we can continue soon over there?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn wrote:
If after, would they not be facing one another?
Maybe her breath was so bad, that they couldn't face one another – without the cachous.
(I know, terrible joke, and VERY disrespectful for the deceased. I apologize for this.)
Kind regards,
Maria

[c.d.]

Hi, Lynn. Actually my interpretation of the cachous is quite more simple. I assume that Liz took one at regular intervals, esp. when expecting to meet a john, to freshen up her breath. After all, women of this age and status were missing several teeth – I can imagine real “cat breath“, as they say. For a thorough investigation it would be of use to examine the box of cachous and count how many were left in there. That's what the police do today in murder and suicide investigations with all medicine found on the premises. But for Stride it's too late, sadly...
Kind regards,
Maria

Hi Maria,

I was about to make the exact same post when I caught site of yours. It does make sense.

By the way, here in the U.S. we say "dog breath."

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I notice that a number of your Stride posts seems to focus on the direction Liz was facing, particularly if it indicates that Liz might have been in the process of leaving the yard. I don't really see how we can draw a conclusion one way or another. Even if she had her back to Jack or was in the process of leaving the yard, would not his calling out to her have turned her around?

c.d.

[mariab]

cachous

Hi, Lynn. Actually my interpretation of the cachous is quite more simple. I assume that Liz took one at regular intervals, esp. when expecting to meet a john, to freshen up her breath. After all, women of this age and status were missing several teeth – I can imagine real “cat breath“, as they say. For a thorough investigation it would be of use to examine the box of cachous and count how many were left in there. That's what the police do today in murder and suicide investigations with all medicine found on the premises. But for Stride it's too late, sadly...
Kind regards,
Maria

[lynn cates]

before/after

Hello Maria. I know what you are thinking about the cachous. So my question is, Before or after? If before, her assailant would be a masochist--it would be quite painful with those in your mouth. If after, would they not be facing one another?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hi all, I'm back (from a job-related visit at the opera and from drinks with a Kiwi shaper friend, to chase the job-related taste away).
Lynn, I think that Kidney was thruthful about the fact that Stride left him on Tuesday, not Thursday. (Wescott writes about this in Examiner.) Kidney is the closest interested party in this and he should be trusted to have known best when Liz split. Still, we don't even know if it was not Kidney who inflicted her bruises on Tuesday during the spat when they split, and we also don't know if some john did it on Wednesday, Thursday, or later. At any rate they don't look like serious bruises, all he had to do was grab her by the shoulders and shake her when “they exchanged words“ on Thursday, so, Tom, don't go think that I'm implying that Kidney was a serious abuser and a suspect for the Ripper.
Somehow I don't believe that Stride would have gotten bruises so quickly after BS pushed her around. I think the less body fat one carries, the quicker bruises form, and Stride was thin, but I'm not sure. We REALLY ought to stop conjecturing about how bruises form, and ask a doctor or medical examiner about this. (IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?/on casebook?)

Tom wrote:
I wrote all about how and why the cachous was in her hand in ‘Berner Street Mystery Part 2', which is the third best essay ever written on the Stride murder.
Wow, you guys are really keeping tabs out there.

Lynn, cachous are breath fresheners, like tic tacs. I'm afraid I did the math already, I'm not going to say anything more than “President Clinton“, and I don't think I'm terribly interested to read Tom's Berner Street Mystery Part 2 (what's Part 1, by the way?!) You guys made me strangulate my coat hanger with a surf leash last night, and that act already made me feel like a complete perv. I'm going to go take a shower now, I feel so filthy.
And by the way, Tom, I think you should really answer Fisherman's repeated inquest about a certain checkered hankerchief's utility as a murder weapon, because I really think Fisherman has a point here...
Best regards from the heat of Paris, where one can hardly breath and the Spaniards are still celebrating their soccer winn, driving around drunk and disorderly all over the place,
Maria