Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Fisherman]

Waiting for your answer, Tom, I decided to make a theoretical presentation of what I mean happened to that knot:

1. Find yourself a tree-trunk, approcimately as thick as an ordinary 1888 unfortunatesīneck.

2. Get a scarf, and tie it around the tree, turning the loosely made knot to the left of the trunk as you stand before it.

3. Get hold of a stick, as thick as your thumb, and half a metre long.

4. Push the stick in, inbetween the scarf and the trunk, so that it sits vertically along the trunk.

5. Grab hold of the stick in both ends, and turn it like a propeller, harder and harder, and watch what happens to the knot. It will tighten very hard as you pull on the stick, and it will do so in spite of the fact that the pulling is not applied from the right hand side, opposite to the knot. In fact, you can put that stick at any place along the trunk and achieve the exact same thing.

Just thought that I would point this out before going to bed. And no jokes about where I can stick my stick example, eh ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Stride garroted

To Fisherman and Tom,
I completely agree with Fisherman here, Tom. A long scarf is a very unpractical and even dangerous item of clothing to wear, even without being attacked. I've seen people getting their long scarf stuck in escalators at the mall. In street fights a long scarf would be the first thing one would grab to take control over the person dumb enough to spot such a scarf. It doesn't make sense that Stride's attacker did not make use of the scarf, nor that he would have pushed her to the ground and she just lay there like a dead fish, while he was in the process of tighting knots.
Apart from this, I very much enjoyed your article, esp. for identifying the urban legends about Kidney (what an unfortunate name!) and un-romanticizing Kelly (and by that I mean Eddowes boyfriend, not Mary Kelly).

I completely agree with everything you said, Fisherman.
Fisherman wrote:
"What happened to the package held by the earlier man"
He either passed it on or put it in his pocket. OR - not to forget that possibility - PC Smith got that bit wrong.
Hey, or maybe the package was a supersized box of cachous!

Tom, I hope for your own sake that you're not 16 stones, because that would be over 100kg! (Or maybe my math sucks.)
And by the way I've posted some thoughts on the old Ramsey thread here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=139197#post139197, if anyone is still interested in this case...
Best regards,
Maria

[Tom_Wescott]

The scarf as garrote?

Of course, there is also the problem of explaining why her killer felt that he wanted to lift as much of her weight as possible before cutting, when it would suffice to lift the head only.

Because he wanted to cut her throat, not her head. Her head was lying over jagged stones, so he need to work his knife blade under her throat. Her scarf offered an easy way to do this.

The scarf as garrote idea doesn't work because this was a decorative scarf, otherwise called a handkerchief. It would be virtually impossible to strange a woman to death this way. It would be even more difficult to do so without her struggling and without leaving evidence of a garrotting. This is why Fisherman's explanation does not at all work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I completely agree with Fisherman here, Tom. A long scarf is a very unpractical and even dangerous item of clothing to wear, even without being attacked. I've seen people getting their long scarf stuck in escalators at the mall. In street fights a long scarf would be the first thing one would grab to take control over the person dumb enough to spot such a scarf. It doesn't make sense that Stride's attacker did not make use of the scarf, nor that he would have pushed her to the ground and she just lay there like a dead fish, while he was in the process of tighting knots.
Apart from this, I very much enjoyed your article, esp. for identifying the urban legends about Kidney (what an unfortunate name!) and un-romanticizing Kelly (and by that I mean Eddowes boyfriend, not Mary Kelly).

As already written, it was not a long scarf. It would have been of very thin material, and rather small. And you'll notice it was pulled tight ON THE LEFT. Who gets strangled to death from right to left? No one. It was pulled tight on the left because she was lying unconscious on her left side and the killer pulled UP from her right side. End of story.

Thank you very much for the kind words, Maria. I'm glad you see that there's no steam left in the Kidney argument.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Stride's scarf

Fisherman, whatever you do, don't indulge in any experiments with a garrote on yourself!

Tom,
I have to admit I've never seen the scarf, and your pointing out that it was pulled tight from left to right pretty much ends the garrotting theory, plus I never said he used a stick as well, as Fisherman imagined. You're probably right that she must have been lying unconscious on her left side and the killer pulled up from her right side. But this still doesn't explain how she ended up unconscious on her left side. I very much suspect that manual strangulation was at hand, or, in this case, quick strangulation with her scarf, which he rearranged when she fell unconcious. Manual strangulation is the only theory to explain the lack of sounds and the lack of bruises left externally. A modern medical examiner would have been able to tell about strangulation from an internal examination of her neck and possibly from petechial hemorrhages in her eyes, but probably not in 1888. It's a known fact (I've learned about this while reading up on the Ramsey case) that only strangulation by rope etc. leaves deep red marks, whereas manual strangulation doesn't leave visible bruises externally. (It's like with bruises made from sports, it takes about 48 hours for them to appear, and here I speak from experience!)
I can't think of another way that he might have subdued them but strangulation. Had he hit them on the face, they wouldn't have developed a shiner, but the doctor would have been able to tell by feeling their jaw or cheek during external examination.
Thank you and best regards,
Maria

[Hunter]

Hello Mariab,

You asked some very fine questions. There is much information on the Stride threads ( maybe too much) and it is easy to miss some of it.
I would point out that Dr. Phillips did mention pressure marks on Stride's shoulders and upon recall Blackwell agreed with him... the idea being that she was suddenly pulled down from behind by the shoulders and her throat cut as soon as she reached the ground.

While it is possible that she was initially facing the street when attacked, it is equally possible that she was facing the wall. Her head was just inches from it.

Perhaps this topic should be discussed on one of the Stride threads.

As for Examiner 2: I have just finished it and though it was well put together with a diversity of topics. You're not going to get that many pages from a hard copy magazine for that price... and you don't have annoying advertisment cards falling out all over the floor either.. LOL

[Ben]

Fisherman, whatever you do, don't indulge in any experiments with a garrote on yourself!

Well, hold on, Maria. Surely you wouldn't wish to discourage Fisherman from conducting the sort of hands-on field research that could prove invaluable in our quest for answers to the Stride mystery?

[mariab]

Stride evidence

Thank you so much for the information, Hunter.
Can I inquire where Dr. Phillips and Dr. Blackwell mentioned pressure marks on Stride's shoulders? What's posted of the postmortem examination and autopsy report on Stride on casebook is obviously not the entire thing.(Not that I'm complaining! The casebook archives are completely impressive in their richness, in my own field of research we have nothing on the internet that would even dare to compare to casebook.) Right now I'm going through what's posted on the Stride inquiry on “Official Documents“, but it doesn't seem to contain the autopsy report. I've ordered Sudgen and The ultimate companion by Evans/Skinner, will they contain transcripts of most of these primary sources?
I'm still going through Examiner 1, not yet 2, and I'm very much enjoying it. My only complain is I wish they'd put up a few more footnotes in the articles, because sometimes the reader isn't clear on where the author got their facts. Mostly one can figure it out, but then the reader should have the right to go back to the source and corroborate what the author claims. (This was mostly my problem with the report by PC White about Packer, before Mr. Evans kindly posted the original source on this thread.)
Thank you and best regards,
Maria

[mariab]

Ben wrote:
Well, hold on, Maria. Surely you wouldn't wish to discourage Fisherman from conducting the sort of hands-on field research that could prove invaluable in our quest for answers to the Stride mystery?
As long as he doesn't try in on a female...! But with a garrote I can imagine that things could easily slip the wrong way...oops : Maybe someone should check on Fisherman tomorrow, if he's still with us?! He said he wanted to try an experiment with some rope and a stick before going to bed.
Maria

[Hunter]

Don't worry Mariab, Ben and Fisherman go way back... LOL

The Stride inquest testimonies(from the Daily Telegraph) posted here on Casebook include the following:

From Blackwell's testimony-
'A Juror: Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up.
The Coroner: Was the silk scarf tight enough to prevent her calling out? - I could not say that. '


From Dr. Phillips-
'...Dr. Blackwell and I made a post-mortem examination, Dr. Blackwell kindly consenting to make the dissection, and I took the following note: "Rigor mortis still firmly marked. Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side. We removed the clothes. We found the body fairly nourished. Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since...'


Dr. Phillips upon being recalled-
'[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.'


Dr. Blackwell upon being recalled-
'The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders? - They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked.
A Juror: How recently might the marks have been caused? - That is rather difficult to say. '


Hope this helps Mariab. There is a new thread in the Stride section in regards to the scarf.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

Hello Stewart,
Thanks for showing us these papers. I have noticed something that maybe you can help with.
The initial on page one. Would I be correct in thinking that the initial in the margin is that of Alexander Carmichael Bruce, with the date 5th October underneath?
best wishes
Phil

Yes, indeed, those are the initials of our old friend senior Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce, seeing through the paperwork whilst Anderson was still away.

[Fisherman]

"Maybe someone should check on Fisherman tomorrow, if he's still with us?"

Only barely ...cough! ...

Really, I am around, as fit as ever. And I see I have a thing or two to add! Letīs begin with Tom:

“Originally Posted by Fisherman:

Of course, there is also the problem of explaining why her killer felt that he wanted to lift as much of her weight as possible before cutting, when it would suffice to lift the head only.

Toms answer:

"Because he wanted to cut her throat, not her head. Her head was lying over jagged stones, so he need to work his knife blade under her throat. Her scarf offered an easy way to do this.”

I am not denying, Tom, that in your scenario, you need to lift the head before you can produce the cut. What I AM saying, is that the knot was pulled “very hard”, and that would seem to imply that he lifted a lot of weight from the ground, and THAT would be completely unnecessary. And – as pointed out before – he did not need to use the scarf at all, since grabbing her by the hair would have done the trick in a much easier way since it would have secured a convex area of the neck to be exposed.

“The scarf as garrote idea doesn't work because this was a decorative scarf, otherwise called a handkerchief. It would be virtually impossible to strangle a woman to death this way.”

What?? Would the scarf break? Would it not be possible to grip around it? What kind of magic is it you are referring to here, Tom? The scarf was tied around the neck, and that is all you need to know. Decorative scarfs are normally made out of silk, just like this one, and silk is a VERY strong thread to work with. You can kill by garotting, using a very thin silk string.
And who said he strangled her TO DEATH?? Not me, for sure. I am saying that he used a garrotting grip on the scarf as he pulled her off balance, producing a choking effect, not a killing one. It was the cut and the following bloodloss that killed her, we all know that.

“It would be even more difficult to do so without her struggling and without leaving evidence of a garrotting. This is why Fisherman's explanation does not at all work.”

Come on, Tom, I am not the one having a problem with the absence of a struggle – you are. You are the one suggesting that she fittingly fainted at the very moment that her killer needed to get her to the ground silently. If she was garrotted by the scarf, then that would ensure immediate silence, plus he would have pulled her off balance, producing the fall. THAT covers all of the particulars, WITHOUT any need of a convenient fainting.

And if you think itīs strange that there were no marks left, then it would be so much more strange if your scenario left nothing in that fashion either, since you are only admitting pressure to a very limited area of the neck.

And – wait! – there is more; ah, the cachous! Now, what you have suggested – and correct me if I am wrong – is that the killer takes her into the court, and she faints and falls or is lowered to the ground. And after that, the killer grabs her by the scarf and cuts her neck. He then finishes by putting a packet of cachous in her hand, shaping the hand around it, and leaves the yard.
So he was not interrupted in producing the comparatively shallow wound, since he had the time to put the packet in her hand afterwards.

But if he commenced a garrotting, then what may have happened? If you look for signs of suffocation, strangulation, garrotting in the hands of a victim, what do you look for? Exactly: clenching of the fists! And – of course – this is exactly why she never dropped the cachous on her way down: because she was going down with a garrotting grip on her scarf!

As for Marias words on no stick being used, I think you need to realize that the stick example was only presented to show that Tom is explicitely wrong saying that the knot must have been pulled from the exact opposite side of the neck. That is simply wrong, and this is what the stick, the scarf and the treetrunk puts beyond discussion. In the Stride case, no stick was used - the killer simply put his hand over the scarf and twisted it hard to the left.

All the best, Tom, Maria!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter; thanks for the excerpts from the inquest! I would only wish to add that there is no knowing at what stage the marks over Strides shoulders came about, just as Blackwell points out. They may well originate from the stage outside the yard.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

That is certainly true Fish. These women didn't lead sedentary lives.

[mariab]

Stride's bruises and garrotting

Thanks so much, Hunter, for posting the inquest testimonies on Stride from the Daily Telegraph. Next time when in need of information, I'll look in the press reports first. As for the marks over Stride's shoulders, I agree with Dr. Blackwell and with Fisherman that it's hard to say when they came about. As Fisherman said, they may have originated from the stage outside the yard, i.e. from BS pushing her around. Or, in my humble opinion, they might have originated from some man grabbing her by the shoulders two nights before. One thing I definitely know from experience is, I go out and do some physical activity, I crush to the ground a few times, I come home fine. About 48 hours later, I'm covered in bruises, but never before at least 2 days have gone through. Obviously every different body bruises differently, and we really should ask someone with medical experience on this. Perhaps bruises continue to develop even postmortem (for a while), so we really ought to consult a medical examiner.
It's very interesting, thought, that Dr. Blackwell said “Over both shoulders, especially the right, from the front aspect under colar bones and in front of chest there is a bluish discolouration which I have watched and seen on two occasions since.“. If he referred to Nichols and Chapman or esp. to Eddowes on this, then what we have here is very important evidence! (But I'm not sure if Dr. Blackwell examined other victims besides Chapman and Stride.)

As for garrotting, I again totally agree with Fisherman re. Stride having clenched her fists due to strangulation, and therefore having kept to the cachous. It's the only explanation for what happened. Plus Fisherman is right, silk is a very strong thread, and anyway any piece of clothing (even a rolled Tshirt) would have been resistent enough for such an assault. I have to admit I attempted a little experimenting myself last night! (On my arm and on a poor coat hanger. ) I have no scarfs, but I tried some things with the leash of my surfboard and, Tom, it's TOTALLY possible to strangle someone from left to right as well. It totally depends from the position one stands in relation to the “assaulted“.
Best regards,
Maria