Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

[drstrange169]

>>I will comment on a few of the remarks by drstrange169. Not too well though. Outside the air is smokey and the sun is pink, but the similarity with Whitechapel in 1888 ends there. Currently 45C/113F. No AC in this room so I'm feeling a little light-headed!<<

We've just come back from Mallacoota covering the fires there, these are devastating times!



>>Comparing her dress to Annie Chapman's ("Detective Diemschutz"), counts as a detailed observation.<<

Could you quote me where Deimshitz says he saw Mrs Chapman's dress? I'm not familiar with that.



>>Witnessing grapes in one clenched/unclenched hand - something the police do not seem to have noticed - counts as a detailed observation.<<

Since there were no grapes in her hand it can't by definition be a detailed observation.



>>Does he mean, he left it were it was, or alternatively that he moved it there?
If he means 'were it was' - how far is the club door from Stride's body? Too far to prod it with a whip handle!
If he means 'moved it there' - then we have 2 issues<<

Deimshitz answers all your questions.

He arrived thru the gates, his pony shies to one side, he pokes the mysterious object with his whip, which on a costermongers barrow is physically possible, parks his pony and cart further down the yard in the open space by the door and goes back to look at the object, lighting a match he sees its a woman.

"A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes. Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow. " Daily Telegraph

I don't understand your confusion, its all there in his statements.



>>I used this page as a reference.<<

Ah, I see. Best to use original sources for information. And it appears you've mis-read the source you did use. It says,

"The doctors arrived about ten minutes after the constables. The police afterwards took our names and addresses and searched everybody."

The part I've underlined shows contains the word "afterwards". In other words, the police took names and addresses later than the Doctors arrival.



>>... I sense surprise, or, he is overemphasising the point that he did not need to stop at the gates.
Why would he do that? <<

Better question is, did he actually say that?

As I've already pointed out in my previous post, your quote of him is only one version of many. The fact that you are only taking one version and implying your own interpretation of it, in research terms, says more about you than Deimshitz.



>>Arterial spray would be outwards, toward her hand and pony's face. Too bad no one thought to examine the pony.
Presumably the shock of having her throat cut would cause muscles to contract and therefore her hands clenched around cachous & grapes.<<

As Deimshitz tells us, the pony was up the yard by the back door. As both doctors tell us, there was no arterial spray. Mrs Stride was strangled and her throat was cut whilst she was close to or actually on the ground, in situ. There were no grapes in her hand.



>>There seems to be no sign of grapes. Only Diemschutz ever mentions grapes. <<

Deimshitz wasn't the only person to mention grapes, they are a story that seems to have been manufactured by Le grande and Batchelor to insert themselves into the investigation.



>>Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the mention of grapes in her right hand, was a lie.<<

It's more reasonable to assume that either Deimshitz saw blood clots and mistook them for grapes or was simply repeating later gossip as fact as many witnesses tend to do in these type of events.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It was an admirable effort Dave, but sometimes we need to pick our battles. I'm surrendering too.

I created this thread with a question mark icon. I'm fairly new to the study of JtR. I don't know why you would frame this as 'a battle'.
If this is a battle, then what are you fighting for or to protect?
I know Louis Diemschutz' story is important to the mystique of Jack the Ripper, but let's not cast Diemschutz as the man who nearly caught JtR in the act, and avoid any intense scrutiny of his own account of his own behaviour, and how well this gels with other accounts and know facts.

One thing that got me particularly interested in the Stride murder, was the 'The Missing Evidence' documentary.
I just love that scene in which Christer Holmgren and Andy Griffiths retrace the path from Lechmere's home to the murder scene, and discover a time discrepancy.
That got me thinking - if any of the other possible JtR victim scenes were recreated, would some sort of anomaly or issue become apparent, that was not obvious when the scene had simply been imagined, due to the mind glossing over an important detail or two.

With that in mind, lets go through part of Diemschutz' account, with comments added.

"I drove into the yard. Both gates were open - wide open. It was rather dark there I drove it in as usual, but as I came into the gate my pony shied to the left, and that made me look at the ground to see what the cause of it was."
No major problem, except that the cart was probably around 3ft/1m wide, so the gates could have been half open, and he could still have driven through. So why the emphasis on the gates being fully open?

"I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement, but I could not see what it was. It was a dark object. I tried to feel it with the handle of my whip to discover what it was. I tried to lift it up with it. As I could not I jumped down at once and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could not get a light sufficient to show that it was the figure of some person, whom by the dress I knew to be a woman."
Given Diemschutz claims to have pulled-up close enough to whatever is on the ground to prod it and attempt to lift it with his whip handle, whilst still seated in the cart, and knowing the approximate dimensions of cart and whip, we should be able to calculate the maximum possible distance from whip hand to body ground, by using the horizontal and vertical offset in Pythagoras' theorem. As we know were Stride lay in relation to wall and gates, this calculation also positions pony and cart in relation to other objects, such as the kitchen door.

"I took no further notice of it, but went into the club and asked where my missus was. I found her in the front-room on the ground-floor."
Diemschutz is now inside the club, and refers to his activity within it.

"I left the pony in the yard by itself just outside the club door."
Diemschutz now makes an outside reference.
This sentence and the previous lack coherence. At worst it is a flat-out contradiction.
At the very least, we need to ask; does 'left' mean 'left as it was', or 'moved to'?
'Left as it was' does not gel with "I tried to feel it with the handle of my whip to discover what it was." That is, unless the handle is several yards long (the distance from Stride to kitchen door).
'Moved to' does not gel with "I took no further notice of it, but went into the club and asked where my missus was."
Diemschutz frantically rushes inside to search for his wife. No moving of pony and cart occurs just prior.

"My wife was with several of the members of the club. I told them. ";There is a woman lying in the yard, but I cannot say whether she is drunk or dead.""
Diemschutz reverts to an inside the club activity reference.

The bottom line is, "I left the pony in the yard by itself just outside the club door." - fits uneasily with his other descriptions.
The sentence is:

• vague
• out of order
• either creates a contradiction or a serious anomaly

This alone makes Diemschutz worthy of scrutiny, even before considering other issues, such as the grapes in Stride's right hand, which as far as I can tell, only he sees.

[Joshua Rogan]

>>Comparing her dress to Annie Chapman's ("Detective Diemschutz"), counts as a detailed observation.<<

Could you quote me where Deimshitz says he saw Mrs Chapman's dress? I'm not familiar with that.

The Morning Advertiser 1st October has Louis saying;
"She was a little better dressed, I should say, then the woman who was last murdered"

However, other papers, eg Daily News carry what appears to be a fuller version and record it as;
"I could not say whether or not she was an unfortunate, but if she was I should judge her to be of a rather better class than the women we usually see about this neighbourhood"

Interestingly, it also says;
"Being asked to describe the body as well as he could, Diemschitz said: I should think the woman was about 27 or 28 years old. I fancy she was of light complexion. (This turns out to be an incorrect description, but the man appears to have been too frightened to make a careful examination.)"

I]>>Witnessing grapes in one clenched/unclenched hand - something the police do not seem to have noticed - counts as a detailed observation.<<[/I]

Since there were no grapes in her hand it can't by definition be a detailed observation.

Dr Phillips stated;

"Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes, or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death"

>>There seems to be no sign of grapes. Only Diemschutz ever mentions grapes. <<

Deimshitz wasn't the only person to mention grapes, they are a story that seems to have been manufactured by Le grande and Batchelor to insert themselves into the investigation.

I'm not sure the two detectives invented the grape story, although they certainly seized on it. But it was there from the first reports;

Daily News 1st Oct interviews;

Louis D: "Her hands were clenched, and when the doctor opened them I saw that she had been holding grapes in one hand and sweetmeats in the other."

Isaac K: "While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left"

Mrs Mortimer: "The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets"

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Nice work JR.

Mrs Mortimer: "The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets"

The Juwes are the men and one woman that will not be blamed for nothing

[NotBlamedForNothing]

drstrange169:

Since there were no grapes in her hand it can't by definition be a detailed observation.

So why do you also say:

It's more reasonable to assume that either Deimshitz saw blood clots and mistook them for grapes or was simply repeating later gossip as fact as many witnesses tend to do in these type of events.

If it is reasonable to assume that, then there was by definition, an observation. You can't have it both ways.

Deimshitz answers all your questions.

Diemschutz discovered a dead body. He is therefore a Person of Interest.
Nothing he said should be taken at face value.

"A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes. Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow. " Daily Telegraph

I don't understand your confusion, its all there in his statements.

You are completely misconstruing the jurors question!
The "going up the yard" refers to the journey he had been taking (and the hypothetical journey of any other person in the same situation), not the supposed relocation of pony and cart. You are assuming that "going up the yard" means moving pony and cart away from Stride, but then why ask; Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - if he starts alongside the body?
Your interpretation doesn't make any sense, and I sense a desire to protect Diemschutz from too much scrutiny, to protect the "romance" of his story.

The part I've underlined shows contains the word "afterwards". In other words, the police took names and addresses later than the Doctors arrival.

Conceded. However, I am now clearer on when the movement of pony and cart is supposed to have occurred, so this segment is of less importance to my analysis.

As I've already pointed out in my previous post, your quote of him is only one version of many. The fact that you are only taking one version and implying your own interpretation of it, in research terms, says more about you than Deimshitz.

Okay fine. However, it was one version, and I'm more inclined to suppose it was Diemschutz overemphasising, and not a journalist. Whatever the case, this point is not crucial to my overall analysis.

As Deimshitz tells us, the pony was up the yard by the back door. As both doctors tell us, there was no arterial spray. Mrs Stride was strangled and her throat was cut whilst she was close to or actually on the ground, in situ. There were no grapes in her hand.

I see nothing in the inquest notes to support the notion of strangulation.
You seem to be stating this as though it were the consensus view - is it though?
The strangulation thesis seems to exist to allow the killing to occur were she was found, while explaining why there was no arterial spray on nearby surfaces. Having the attack commence outside the gates causes unwanted complications.

Deimshitz wasn't the only person to mention grapes, they are a story that seems to have been manufactured by Le grande and Batchelor to insert themselves into the investigation.

Why would Diemschutz pick up on that story, rather than telling it as he saw it?
If Diemschutz is getting confused about the grapes, then why believe everything else he says?
As per Joshua Rogan's post, 3 witnesses mention grapes, but not one PC or doctor does (except in the negative).
What are we to make of this? Well, I speculate that both Pipe Man and Fanny Mortimer stood watch.

One more point, and a very crucial one.
Ripperologists seem unanimous in their belief that Diemschutz moved his pony and cart before going inside to search for his wife.
But here is the critical question: Why bother?
What does Diemschutz gain by doing this?
If there were room between cart and body for Diemschutz to light his match, then there is room for a few others.
Its almost as though he anticipates a throng of people gathering, something that he would do if he were involved in the murder, otherwise not.

[drstrange169]

>>If it is reasonable to assume that, then there was by definition, an observation. You can't have it both ways.<<

There is no both ways, there is only one way, the way it was reported.

If someone sees something that is not there or is mistaken about about what they see, it is by definition not an accurate detailed observation. If someone is reported by contemporary reports as being unobservant as Deimshitz was by newspapers before the inquest and Deimshitz himself acknowledges he did not take notice of details, as he did at the inquest, then it is inaccurate to characterise his behaviour as detailed observation, is it not?



>>Diemschutz discovered a dead body. He is therefore a Person of Interest. Nothing he said should be taken at face value<<

Which is why close attention needs to be paid to all the information we have.



>> You are completely misconstruing the jurors question!<<

My post had no interest in the jurors question, so I could hardly have misconstrued it. It was there as a curtesty to place the part I underlined in context. Deimshitz tells us where he got off his cart,
"I had passed it when I got down from my barrow."

Nobody needs to "assume" anything, Deimshitz is telling us what he did, something your posts seem not to have understood. Now, if you don't believe him, that's your choice, but you should not write, as you have been, that he does not say where his cart was when he got off it.



>>The strangulation thesis seems to exist to allow the killing to occur were she was found, while explaining why there was no arterial spray on nearby surfaces. Having the attack commence outside the gates causes unwanted complications.<<

The "strangulation thesis" exists because the medical evidence and the physical evidence is consistent with strangulation. If Mrs Stride wasn't strangled then we have an unusual set of evidence medically and physically. Your scenario does not explain the condition of her heart as described by Dr Phillips..



>>Why would Diemschutz pick up on that story, rather than telling it as he saw it?<<

Why do so many witnesses say things that are wrong? There are some very good articles on the subject.



>> As per Joshua Rogan's post, 3 witnesses mention grapes, but not one PC or doctor does (except in the negative).<<

Mrs Mortimer wasn't a witness to the hand opening, she is a good example of how hearsay spreads in those situations. Issac K couldn't speak English so who knows what he really saw.
What can be relied upon is the doctors statements, that there were no grapes in Mrs Strides hand, no trace in her stomach or stains of grapes on her possecesions.



>>Ripperologists seem unanimous in their belief that Diemschutz moved his pony and cart before going inside to search for his wife.<<

The first thing you'll learn about Ripperology is that Ripperogists aren't unanimous about any thing!



>>If there were room between cart and body for Diemschutz to light his match, then there is room for a few others.
Its almost as though he anticipates a throng of people gathering, something that he would do if he were involved in the murder, otherwise not.<<

Crowd will gather to see something unusual no matter how much space there is, it's human nature.

As Deimshitz describes it, he enters the gateway, his pony shies, he sees something which he doesn't recognise, he prods it with his whip but still can't recognise it. It's not a big deal, at this stage he doesn't know it's a body, so he parks his cart where he normal would, by the door to unload, and goes back to see what it is. Once he finds out it's a body, adrenalin kicks in. Now, you might not want to believe Deimshitz for whatever reason and that's fine, but there is nothing odd or unusual about this scenario as described by Deimshitz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If someone sees something that is not there or is mistaken about about what they see, it is by definition not an accurate detailed observation.

So what do you think it was, a mistaken observation or a lie?
My position is that the notion of mistaking dried drops of blood for grapes, is stretching credibility to braking point.

Which is why close attention needs to be paid to all the information we have.

Fine with that. It's just that the more I read about the Stride incident, the more suspicious I'm becoming of Diemschutz and associates.

Deimshitz tells us where he got off his cart, "I had passed it when I got down from my barrow."

So he prods at something which, in his forward facing seated position, is over his right shoulder.
Therefore he most likely prods the head region. I wonder if it felt like a head?

Nobody needs to "assume" anything, Deimshitz is telling us what he did, something your posts seem not to have understood. Now, if you don't believe him, that's your choice, but you should not write, as you have been, that he does not say where his cart was when he got off it.

I suggested he was alongside the body. If he was indeed past the body, then it can't have been far at all, otherwise the prodding with whip handle story has to be dismissed as fictional. I'm anticipating someone will, at some point, give an estimate as to the distance over which this prodding occurred - min and max.

Your scenario does not explain the condition of her heart as described by Dr Phillips..

All i know so far is:

Mr. George Baxter Phillips: The heart was small; left ventricle firmly contracted, right less so. Right ventricle full of dark clot; left absolutely empty.

Why do so many witnesses say things that are wrong? There are some very good articles on the subject.

You seem to be cherry-picking when you accept Diemschutz at his word, and when he can be safely ignored.
At the moment, what I really want to read is why the "grapes score" was: Whitechapel residents 3-0 Police and Doctors

The first thing you'll learn about Ripperology is that Ripperogists aren't unanimous about any thing!

True. A field with experts but no consensus must be rare, maybe unique. That's interesting.

It's not a big deal, at this stage he doesn't know it's a body, so he parks his cart where he normal would, by the door to unload, and goes back to see what it is.

Wait, I thought he prodded and then immediately jumped down and lit a match?
I can now see were the confusion lies.
You're assuming "I had passed it when I got down from my barrow." - implies relocation has already occurred.
How do you know that's what it means and not (say) 2ft past the body?
From the inquest notes I think you have this dead wrong...

It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there. I could tell from the dress that it was the figure of a woman.
[Coroner] You did not disturb it? - No. I went into the club and asked where my wife was. I found her in the front room on the ground floor.

No way does Diemschutz relocate his pony and cart! Why can't people see that?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Something I noticed when reading the inquest text:

Constable Henry Lamb: The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body.

The gate doors were probably fairly large and solid, and the body lay quite close to and inline with the club wall.
The right side gate (when entering), would have formed an almost continuous "object" with Stride's body.
In the near-darkness, there would have been no perceived gap between gate and body.
Therefore the pony did not likely shy at Liz, as a discrete object. So it must have shied at the smell of blood.
This means we have a testable hypothesis.
If a pony pulling a cart and human shies at a substantial amount of fresh blood, Diemschutz' story is okay on that point.
Otherwise we may have to draw a different conclusion.

I would also suggest that the close proximity of feet to the gate's outer edge, looks ... more than a coincidence.

[Kattrup]

I would also suggest that the close proximity of feet to the gate's outer edge, looks ... more than a coincidence.

hello Not, that is actually an interesting observation.

as for Diemschitz’s testimony, I find it unproblematic. One point that was brought might bear mentioning, however: the pony was normally stabled elsewhere, not at the club. At George Yard, Cable Street.

[DJA]

Probably worth having a look at the Goad map posted earlier.
Some of the measurements do not seem to tally.

George Yard was at the rear of the George Hotel,145 Cable Street.
George Chapman's barber shop and residence was at 126.

Think Aaron Kosminski's brother took over the Nelson beer house at 46 Berner Street,although I probably have that wrong.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

hello Not, that is actually an interesting observation.

as for Diemschitz’s testimony, I find it unproblematic. One point that was brought might bear mentioning, however: the pony was normally stabled elsewhere, not at the club. At George Yard, Cable Street.

Thanks. Let's see if I can make another interesting observation or two.

[Coroner] Any person going up the centre of the yard might have passed without noticing it? - I, perhaps, should not have noticed it if my pony had not shied. I had passed it when I got down from my barrow.

I take this as meaning he is a little past the body when he stops to jump down and take a closer look. Let's say 2ft past.
As the feet were facing the exit and the head closer to the yard, he therefore jumps down close to Stride's head.
What does he observe from that position?

[Coroner] Did you notice whether the clothes of the deceased were in order? - They were in perfect order.
[Coroner] How was she lying? - On her left side, with her face towards the club wall.

No blood is observed until he returns from inside:

I then got a candle and went into the yard, where I could see blood before I reached the body.

So let's get this straight. From right next to her head, he notices:

• Her clothes are in perfect order, even though these are black and further from him than head, face and neck.
• Her face is facing away from him, and therefore her neck is well exposed

However, he does not notice:

• The deep cut across her throat, probably at reachable distance
• The developing stream of blood from neck into the gutter, no more than 2ft from himself
• That the face is not that of his wife

In short, Diemschutz does not notice what is important and near-to-hand, but he does notice that her dark clothing is in good order!
Does that strike you as a bit odd?
He seems very interested in what people wear, and therefore what social class they belong to.
I guess that makes sense for a committed Socialist.

I drove into the yard, both gates being wide open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what. It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match.

From the moment Diemschutz notices the pony shying left, he is spotting something unusual on the right, so he stops and prods the object with whip handle.
It reads as though the pony's shying results in an almost immediate halt.
If, as already established, the pony is reacting to blood and not Stride's physical presence, and given that the pony would have a strong sense of smell, we could suppose the shying movement occurs even before the pony reaches level with Liz's feet.
So let's say the pony reacts noticeably, 1ft from the feet, and as mentioned above, Diemschutz stops 2ft past the body.
Let's say that 5ft covers the distance from Stride's head to feet, as she lay.
Assume a 6ft long pony, and 4ft from pony's rear to the seating position.
That means the pony travels: 1 + 5 + 6 + 4 + 2 = 18ft - from the moment it shies.
How many feet/second does the pony cover?
If we guess 2-2.5ft/s - the pony is not stopped for up to 9 seconds from the moment it shies left.
Does that seem like an inordinately long time-span, to you?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I wasn't going to keep on with this thread, but....

"As is already established, the pony is reacting to blood"

No, it's not established. It's your own idea. Ideas don't become facts simply because you've stated it as such.
You clearly are not open to debate. The more you create facts for yourself, the less likely you will ever be to sensible, rational discussion.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wasn't going to keep on with this thread, but....

....It's too intriguing not to?

No, it's not established. It's your own idea. Ideas don't become facts simply because you've stated it as such.

True. It was the wrong word to use.
I did't mean, however; established beyond all reasonable doubt.
I meant; Already discussed, and my own conclusion reached.
Apologies for the apparent arrogance.

You clearly are not open to debate.

Sure I am!
As you know I think the notion that Diemschutz came more or less face-to-face with someone who he believed could be dead, and worse still, could be his wife, would proceed to conscientiously move his pony and cart to the door, before rushing inside in a state of shock and panic, is just wrong. In fact I think its a farcical notion.
Diemschutz testimony supports my interpretation.
I could be wrong though!
But other than "Diemschutz said he left it at the door" - what else have you got?
I'm all ears....

[drstrange169]

>>My position is that the notion of mistaking dried drops of blood for grapes, is stretching credibility to braking point.<<

I couldn't agree more, which is why I wrote blood clots not blood stains. Dr Phillips stated,

"The right arm was lying over the body, and the back of the hand and wrist had on them clotted blood."

Here's a picture of a blood clot what does it like like?




>>... what I really want to read is why the "grapes score" was: Whitechapel residents 3-0 Police and Doctors<<

As I've already noted, Fanny Mortimer wasn't there when Blackwell opened Mrs Strides hand, the gates were closed at that time. So your three is in fact only two. You should also note Deimshitz makes no mention of grapes at the inquest, presumably by then he then knew his error. Ditto Issac K, who couldn't speak English properly to those who interviewed him. Ergo, the correct score is: residents nil - police nil - doctors nil.

As is clear from the above picture the error is an easily made one. The grapes are not an issue.

[drstrange169]

>>You're assuming "I had passed it when I got down from my barrow." - implies relocation has already occurred. How do you know that's what it means and not (say) 2ft past the body? From the inquest notes I think you have this dead wrong...<<

This is the importance of reading ALL the evidence available.

Deimshitz enters the yard, he mentions both gates are open to bring home the point there was space for the pony to shy to one side. The pony starts shying as he approaches the gates, it does not stop it simply tries to avoid the right hand side of the passage. His barrow is small and from it he is comfortably able to reach the object with his whip handle.

"I had a barrow, something like a costermonger's with me. ... It is a two-wheeled barrow. ... I drove into the yard. Both gates were wide open. It was rather dark there. I drove in as usual, and, all at once, as I came into the gate, the pony shied to the left. That caused me to turn my head down to the ground on my right to see what it was that had made him shy. - Could you see anything? I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement. I could not see what it was. It was a dark object. There was nothing white about it. I did not get off the barrow, but I tried with my whip handle to feel what it was. I tried to lift it up, but I could not."

He then parks the pony and the cart by the back door ready for unloading and walks back to the object,

"When I got down my cart passed the body. The barrow was past the body when I got down to see what it was."

"What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door. "

It is only by reading the supplementary questions, from the jurors and coroner, that we get the full picture.