Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[lynn cates]

chromosomes

Hello Maria. I am not offended; and I am XY.

If you'd care to, you might pop round to the Stride thread--I started it for you as per our conversation.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

By the way I thought that Lynn was a female!

I'm sure he's used to that, having gone through life with a girl's name. I used to think the same, and I thought Archaic was a guy. So much for 'it's all in the name.'

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Yes he did. Is something 'quite clear' because you say so? He said he sold grapes to Liz's broad shouldered companion. He was asked by White if he had seen anything unusual and he said quite correctly that he had not, as Caz has stated here and elsewhere. The whole Packer as serial liar/ senile moron scenario doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned. The only actual problem with with Packer's story is that he was supposed to have denied having been interviewed by police in the first instance but this story could well have been a journalistic invention.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom W: He most certainly did not see Stride standing in the rain as he later stated because her clothes were bone dry.
S Thomas: Yes he did.

How can I argue with that?

The whole Packer as serial liar/ senile moron scenario doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned.

I've never suggested he was a moron. This is a thread for the latest Casebook Examiner. Do you have it? Have you read my essay? Caz certainly hasn't, yet feels compelled to critique. I'd recommend reading it if you want to know the full truth about why it is crystal clear that Packer's tale was a pack of lies. That is, assuming your inquiry to me was sincere and your mind is still open on the subject. Your defensive tone leaves me wondering.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Lynn wrote:
Hello Maria. I am not offended; and I am XY.
If you'd care to, you might pop round to the Stride thread--I started it for you as per our conversation.
Good. And I'm an XX. (As there have been male “Marias“ in the past, such as Karl Maria von Weber, Erich Maria Remarque, etc.!)
What's the name of the recent Stride thread that you've started? There are so many Stride threads out there, it's hard to find my way around. I've only gone through a few of them (all old), and they were most interesting.
By the way I've just walked in at home in Berlin, where it's very warm, but not with such suffocating heat as in Paris, and it smells like tree leaves, not like CO2 and urine like in Paris! And Paley is here! (Obviously I mean the book, which I've ordered recently, not the author himself!)
But the first business at hand is a marathon of unpacking/packing for South Africa. The night is young...

[lynn cates]

Where's Liz

Hello Maria. Willkommen. The thread is called "Where's Liz?"

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Danke schon. I might look into “Where's Liz“ at some point, but I'm not sure if tonight. I still haven't finished unpacking the computer bag, the boardbag and the suitcase are awaiting, and I have to email back someone in ZA about a visit to a township (Kayamandi) and to the township high school. (The latter might prove to be interesting...)

[Ozzy]

Dear Trevor,

First off I want to say I would prefer to PM you with this but I think as I have a low post count I can't.
I've dipped in and out of Ripper world since I read Stephen King's book around 1978. At present I don't own a copy of your book although I'm sure before long I will have although I'm afraid to say it will probably be a second hand copy simply as it will be cheaper to buy for me. It's certainly not suppose to mean anything I assure you.
I remember listening to you on the podcast and at times felt some of the others didn't understand you. From the little I understand you were trying to prove or disprove aspects of the case which had been put forward by others which would need experiments costing time and money. Basically you was the conduit providing the time and money. I then got the impression some people were attacking you for these results when all you were doing was the experiments for these aspects in which experiments were needed.
I hope I've got that right?

Anyway to my reason for delurking. I might of missed it elsewhere. If so sorry but may I ask why you use bold on your posts? For me it's the same as capitals. It's like your shouting. It's not netiquette and when I read your posts I get a shiver down my spine simply because of it. I for one would appreciate it if you could stop using bold.
Or will I have to continue shivering?
Thank you.
Robin.

[Stephen Thomas]

Tom W: He most certainly did not see Stride standing in the rain as he later stated because her clothes were bone dry.
S Thomas: Yes he did.

How can I argue with that?



I've never suggested he was a moron. This is a thread for the latest Casebook Examiner. Do you have it? Have you read my essay? Caz certainly hasn't, yet feels compelled to critique. I'd recommend reading it if you want to know the full truth about why it is crystal clear that Packer's tale was a pack of lies. That is, assuming your inquiry to me was sincere and your mind is still open on the subject. Your defensive tone leaves me wondering.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There was no 'defensive tone' in my post, Tom. I have read your essay and have already congratulated you on it because your research had been impressive though your ultimate conclusions I don't fancy.

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"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."

Say again? I thought, Tom, that YOU were the one who suggested that a knot on a cylindrical object (such as a neck) could only be tightened by pulling from the exact opposite side?
Now, I do not wish to point myself out as the foremost garotting expert on Casebook, but I do have some smallish insights into physical laws, and in this case those insights pretty much prove that the inexperienced guy around when it comes to pulling knots/garotting/judging inexperience is you, Tom.

"I will add that ... Stride 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"

...and I will add that Kidney never sung in the Vienna Boys Choir, that Stride was actually a lesbian à la "From Hell" who fancied queen Victoria and that Matthew Packer preferred sugar to salt on his breakfast eggs. And, of course, in doing so I will be on terra firma in the sense that you will find it hard to disprove my ramblings - just as some of yours hold that very same quality.
Incidentally, the FACT that we have no knowledge of any lover of Strides apart from Kidney in that period does not make it a FACT that there was no such man. But I really should not have to go through the work of pointing that out to you, should I, Tom?

Luckily, not all your statements are of this dizzy quality, some are quite simply wrong: We all know that compressing somebodys neck violently will make it harder for that person to cry out, so where you got your denial of that fact from beats me. Inexperience, perhaps ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Steven Thomas wrote:
There was no 'defensive tone' in my post, Tom. I have read your essay and have already congratulated you on it because your research had been impressive though your ultimate conclusions I don't fancy.
I'm afraid it doesn't make much sense to give praise on an “impressive research“ when the conclusions brought up by said research are then denied. I've still to form an informed opinion re. Packer's credibility as a witness until I manage to read Examiner 2. (And I got Paley and Sudgen to read as well.)
Fisherman wrote:
We all know that compressing somebodys neck violently will make it harder for that person to cry out, so where you got your denial of that fact from beats me. Inexperience, perhaps ...?
Agree with this on you, Fisherman, although I have to admit that Tom's “inexperience“ in this case appears rather healthy to me! Hope you caught some big ones during the weekend .
Gotta run now,

[Fisherman]

Well, I am not only a fisherman - I am a boatsman too, and so I have been tying a few knots in my life. And that made me think that the issue of the hard pulling of Strides scarf knot needed some experimenting.
And so I found myself a chequered silk scarf and a piece of polished pipe, some 15 centimeters in diametre, and I tied the scarf around it, using to overhand knots in a row, the way people normally tie a scarf.
Then I tried to pull from the side opposite to the knot, to see if the knot was tightened. Interestingly, it was not until I applied much power something happened. Before that, the lock of the knot was NOT tightened.
After that, I tied a new knot, and put my hand over the scarf at a 90 degree distance from the knot and used a garotting grip. That immediately tightened the knot.
There was a difference, obviously.

Thereafter, I decided to move to human material; I tied the knot around the calf of my oldest sons (who willingly obliged) leg, and tried the Wescott scenario once again. This time, I could easily lift his leg from the ground (and he is a large boy, weighing in at about 90 kilogrammes) without any tightening of the knot at all. It was as loose as I put his leg down as it was when I lifted it. Probably the texture of the skin meant that the friction built into it soaked up very much of the lifting power.
Finally, I did the garotte again, with the 90 degree distance to the knot. In that case, the knot was tightened hard directly, and you could see the silk being pulled out from the knot as it tightened.
I then moved on to trying pulling in the garotte fashion from different degree distances, and it became quite clear that the closer to the knot the garotting grip was applied, the more efficiently the knot was tightened.

So whatever tightened that knot, it was certainly NOT a lifting of Strides head by a grip exactly opposite to the knot. The NEARER the knot the hand applying the power is situated, the harder the knot is pulled. So Stride was intermittently garotted/strangled, choked by means of her own scarf. There cannot be much question about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

knots

Yeah, I figured out that you might know a thing or two about knots, Fisherman. Your experiment with your son's calf pretty much corroborates what happened during my own experiment with my surf leash and coat hanger in Paris. (And I must say, you have a very accomodating son! )
Gotta run again,

[Tom_Wescott]

Maria and Stephen Thomas (Steve to Maria),

Just so we're clear, it is not a 'conclusion' or a 'theory' of Tom Wescott's that Matthew Packer's evidence can be disposed of. This was decided by the police who investigated the murders and interviewed him. What I have done with my work is to illustrate that Packer did not orchestrate his own ruse but was a pawn of one Charles Le Grand who not only ran that show, but also spearheaded the Batty Street Lodger myth - another suspect who never existed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Grapes of Wrath

Your theory involves Packer seeing the murderer, doesn't it, albeit after the event and in different circumstances.

No, that's not my theory at all. Any theory that invests Packer with any credibility whatsoever is not a theory to take seriously. I'm pretty sure I made this stance clear in my essay.

Really, Tom? I could have sworn that your aim was to make a case for Le Grand being Stride's murderer. As such, your theory would seem to depend on Packer being induced by the murderer, shortly after the event, to invent his sighting of the victim and to invent a suspect to accompany her. Obviously in this scenario Packer the Pawn could have had no idea that anything fishy was going on, or that it could have been the murderer himself who was so intent on prodding him into perjury - which kind of does rely on the man being senile or moronic, doesn't it?

This is a thread for the latest Casebook Examiner. Do you have it? Have you read my essay? Caz certainly hasn't, yet feels compelled to critique.

Yeah, I have to hold my hand up there Tom. I just saw your ‘stationary shop’ and various other howlers and laughed so hard my eyeballs fell out and I was unable to read the essay itself.

Seriously though, I did miss the bit where you provided proof that Packer had no customers that night, or could not have seen Liz or her killer at any point as he went about his normal business. But not to worry, I’m sure someone must have read your essay properly and can fill me in, if you’re having trouble pointing me to the page where I can find the details for myself.

Love,

Caz
X