Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

[DJA]

Full Daily Telegraph version.

Lewis Dienishitz [Diemschutz], having affirmed, deposed: I reside at No. 40 Berner-street, and am steward of the International Workmen's Club. I am married, and my wife lives at the club too, and assists in the management. On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street. I had been to the market near the Crystal Palace, and had a barrow like a costermonger's, drawn by a pony, which I keep in George-yard Cable-street. I drove home to leave my goods. 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. 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.
[Coroner] What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door. There were several members in the front room of the club, and I told them all that there was a woman lying in the yard, though I could not say whether she was drunk or dead. I then got a candle and went into the yard, where I could see blood before I reached the body.
[Coroner] Did you touch the body? - No, I ran off at once for the police. I could not find a constable in the direction which I took, so I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could. A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased. As he lifted it up I saw the wound in the throat.
[Coroner] Had the constables arrived then? - At the very same moment Eagle and the constables arrived.
[Coroner] Did you notice anything unusual when you were approaching the club? - No.
[Coroner] You saw nothing suspicious? - Not at all.
[Coroner] How soon afterwards did a doctor arrive? - About twenty minutes after the constables came up. No one was allowed by the police to leave the club until they were searched, and then they had to give their names and addresses.
[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.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body resting on the side? - No, I should say only her face. I cannot say how much of the body was sideways. I did not notice what position her hands were in, but when the police came I observed that her bodice was unbuttoned near the neck. The doctor said the body was quite warm.
[Coroner] What quantity of blood should you think had flowed from the body? - I should say quite two quarts.
[Coroner] In what direction had it run? - Up the yard from the street. The body was about one foot from the club wall. The gutter of the yard is paved with large stones, and the centre with smaller irregular stones.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen men and women together in the yard? - Never.
[Coroner] Nor heard of such a thing? - No.
A Juror: Could you in going up the yard have passed the body without touching it? - Oh, yes.
[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.
[Coroner] How far did the blood run? - As far as the kitchen door of the club.
[Coroner] Was any person left with the body while you ran for the police? - Some members of the club remained; at all events, when I came back they were there. I cannot say whether any of them touched the body.
Inspector Reid (interposing): When the murder was discovered the members of the club were detained on the premises, and I searched them, whilst Dr. Phillips examined them.
A Juror; Was it possible for anybody to leave the yard between the discovery of the body and the arrival of the police?
Witness: Oh, yes - or, rather, it would have been possible before I informed the members of the club, not afterwards.
[Coroner] When you entered the yard, if any person had run out you would have seen them in the dark? - Oh, yes, it was light enough for that. It was dark in the gateway, but not so dark further in the yard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Diemschutz' testimony is full of holes and inconsistencies. Here's another one...

Visibility with match:

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.

Visibility with candle:

There were several members in the front room of the club, and I told them all that there was a woman lying in the yard, though I could not say whether she was drunk or dead. I then got a candle and went into the yard, where I could see blood before I reached the body.

There is a major problem here...

A candle is hardly any brighter than a match!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yes, but you can hold a candle for more than a few seconds.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Not really a hole, or inconsistent. It makes sense.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Where do Mrs Mortimer and clay pipe man stand in relation to the murder location, and each other?

Mrs Mortimer at 36 Berner Street:

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Israel Schwartz testimony:

12:45 AM (approximately): Quoting Home Office File:

"Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, and having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, "Lipski", and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.

Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen."

So pipe man is probably out the front of number 44, or maybe 46 Berner (the corner).
Dutfield's Yard lane runs between 40 (the club) and 42.
So it would appear that:

The two nightwatchmen "straddle" the murder point, at roughly the same distance from that point.

By various means, Stride has been persuaded to reach the location at which she will be murdered.
One of those means is an unusual degree of public intimacy:

11:00 PM: Two laborers, J. Best and John Gardner were going into the Bricklayer's Arms Public House on Settles street, north of Commercial Road and almost opposite Berner Street. As they went in Stride was leaving with a short man with a dark mustache and sandy eyelashes. The man was wearing a billycock hat, mourning suit and coat. Best says "They had been served in the public house and went out when me and my friends came in. It was raining very fast and they did not appear willing to go out. He was hugging and kissing her, and as he seemed a respectably dressed man, we were rather astonished at the way he was going on at the woman." Stride and her man stood in the doorway for some time hugging and kissing. The workmen tried to get the man to come in for a drink but he refused. They then called to Stride. "That's Leather Apron getting 'round you." The man and Stride moved off towards Commercial Road and Berner Street. "He and the woman went off like a shot soon after eleven."

Did the short man with a dark mustache and sandy eyelashes later throw Stride down on the footway at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard?
Perhaps the instincts of the two laborers was better than they realized.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, but you can hold a candle for more than a few seconds.

Given the quotes, this misses the point.
It also assumes the wind does not blow out the candle.

[Dupin]

I have always accepted Diemschutz's story without question, since I can only assume the police of the day would have questioned him most thoroughly. But there is something odd about the candle: yes it can throw almost as much light as a match and for much longer. But with the match Diemschutz had good night vision having just arrived from the gloom of Whitechapel. With the candle he had just been inside the club, which was lit up, so he would have taken longer to see anything. Countering that is his statement that "(the blood ran) as far as the kitchen door of the club", so maybe that is why he could see blood so quickly with his candle.

[DJA]

Having grown up with an outside dunny populated with redback spiders,a candle gives your eyes time to adjust to your surroundings.
A match does not.

Pipeman was at the doorway of Nelson's,46 Berner Street, ie the public house a few doors away from the yard.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

drstrange:

>>The Foreman: “Was there sufficient room for you to pass the body when you went into the yard?”
Diemschutz: “Yes.; and did so. When my pony shied I was passing the body, and was right by when I got down”.<<

Deimshitz's reply is ambiguous to say the least. Checking the others newspapers coverage we see two words are missing from the sentence for it to make sense and conform to the other reports.

“Yes.; and did so. When my pony shied I was passing the body, and was right by (the backdoor) when I got down”.<<

Here's the Telegraph's version,

"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."

Morning Addy,

"Juror.-Was there room for you to have passed the body with your cart?-Oh, yes. Mine is not a very wide cart; it only took up the centre of the passage. If my pony had not shied, perhaps I would not have noticed it at all. When I got down my cart passed the body. The barrow was past the body when I got down to see what it was."

The newspaper quotes simply mean that without the shying of the pony to alert him of something on the right, he (or anyone else in a similar position), would likely have passed the body without noticing it.
"I had passed it when I got down from my barrow" and "When I got down my cart [had] passed the body" - is Diemschutz telling us that he nearly missed the body himself, but he didn't. Note also that the first sentence contains the required 'has'.

To change this:

“Yes.; and did so. When my pony shied I was passing the body, and was right by when I got down”.

To this:

“Yes.; and did so. When my pony shied I was passing the body, and was right by (the backdoor) when I got down”.

... could most charitably be described as a creative way to solve the dilemma.
At the very least, you and anyone else who goes along with this "interpretation", now have to answer for us:

If the pony and cart were parked outside the backdoor, where was Jack the Ripper?

In the traditional view, Diemschutz stops at the body, with the cart inline to it and therefore just inside the gates.
JtR is hiding further down the lane, presumably in the vicinity of the door.
With pony and cart parked at door however, you're "pushing" Jack right back into the yard area, which if anyone is there, is problematic to say the least.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have always accepted Diemschutz's story without question, since I can only assume the police of the day would have questioned him most thoroughly. But there is something odd about the candle: yes it can throw almost as much light as a match and for much longer. But with the match Diemschutz had good night vision having just arrived from the gloom of Whitechapel. With the candle he had just been inside the club, which was lit up, so he would have taken longer to see anything. Countering that is his statement that "(the blood ran) as far as the kitchen door of the club", so maybe that is why he could see blood so quickly with his candle.

Nice observations.

Diemschutz at inquest:

[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.
[Coroner] What did you do with the pony? - I left it in the yard by itself, just outside the club door. There were several members in the front room of the club, and I told them all that there was a woman lying in the yard, though I could not say whether she was drunk or dead. I then got a candle and went into the yard, where I could see blood before I reached the body.

Can we ascertain from this that Diemschutz first enters the club through the side door, and then with candle in hand, reenters the lane via Berner Street?
If instead he enters through the front door, he might have said something like "I went into the front room of the club and found my wife straight away".
If the members he goes outside with first rush quickly through the club to exit through the side door, they may well have pulled along a trail of curious people.
Therefore it would be best to suppose that Diemschutz did "a full 360" - entering through the side door, and exiting through the front.

The problem here is Diemschutz' claim to "...see blood before I reached the body."
We know that Stride's feet were pretty much right up against the edge of the open gate, so to see blood before reaching the body, Diemschutz is implying that he can see the blood at the threshold of footpath to lane.
He is at the worst possible angle to observe blood, the blood is running away from him, and yet unlike when he was right alongside her head with his match, he claims to be able to see the blood with the aid of a single candle!

Diemschutz' story is legendary, but the more the details are analysed, the more it falls apart.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Mrs Mortimer:

It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found.

Around 30 people - police, doctors, club members, and other members of the public - are gathered around the body at the peak of activity.
That's a lot of combinations of people.
How does Mrs Mortimer become aware of the details of Mrs Diemschutz' location, and of the probable audibility of outside events, to her?
As chance would have it, Fanny must have spoken to Mrs Diemschutz within the hubbub of people around the body.

If Mrs Mortimer's knowledge of Mrs Diemschutz' - both as a person and her location when Louis arrives home - is accepted as accurate, then Louis's claim to have found his wife in the front room, ground floor, is a lie.
Alternatively, why would Fanny make up this sort of detail?

[drstrange169]

Hello Spider,

>> I wasn't quoting from any newspaper it was a court document as far as I can remember. Newspapers, as they are now, are unreliable. II will dig out the book later.<<

The quote is from The Times 2nd Oct 1888 page 6.



It's in the indispensable "Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, which is maybe why you're thinking it might be official.

[drstrange169]

>> This got me thinking - how viable was the yard lane as a spot for prostitutes to take clients for sex?
I'm aware that the yard lane and closed gates were around 9-12ft wide.
If sex was intended to occur quite close to the open gate edge (that is, the death position), the pair would have only been ~7ft from the entrance - not exactly a private location. <<

Rightly or wrongly, I'm assuming you are not very worldly.

Couples in a big city having a quick knee-trembler on a Saturday night in a dark spot a few feet from a roadway isn't an usual occurrence, now or back in 1888.

I suggest reading some of the published works by Victorian social workers, the likes of Booth, Barnet and Butler. That kind of behaviour was common in the East End back then and I suspect, still is. Also, remember just two streets way was the so called Tiger Bay area, infamous for prostitution.



>> Furthermore, they would have been right outside a busy club, roughly equidistant from two of its entrances.<<

Let's check list the previous recent murders:

Emma Smith attacked on the major thoroughfare of Osbourne Street.
Martha Tabram murdered on the stairs of a heavily populated block of flats.
"Polly" Nichols murdered in the street virtually under the window of the light sleeping Green family.
Annie Chapman murdered in a backyard with no escape route, right next to the back door of a heavily populated house, close to the time the tenants would be getting up.

Arguable Berner, Mitre and Dorset Streets were all much safer places for the murderer. Especially as all witnesses agree you could walk past the murder spot and not see anything.

[drstrange169]

>> Parking at the door is not compatible with the whip probing. Have you now accepted that the whip probing is a fiction?<<

(Heavy sigh) Read what is written. All of it.

Deimshitz arrives.

His pony reacts to something so he draws along side of it.

He prods it with his whip handle.

Curiosity peaked, he parks his cart by the back door walks back to the mysterious object and strikes a match.

It's all there in the reports. if you read them fully.

The police understood it, Baxter and the jury understood it, why can't you?

I'll leave the final words to the Corner's summation,

"At 1 o'clock the body was found by the manager of the club. He had been out all day, and returned at the time. He was in a two-wheeled barrow drawn by a pony, and as he entered the gateway his pony shied at some object on his right. ... it was too dark to see what the object was and he passed on further down the yard. He returned on foot, and on searching found the body of deceased ..."

[drstrange169]

>> Diemschutz' testimony is full of holes and inconsistencies. <<

If there are, they haven't been mentioned on this thread yet.


>>Here's another one... Visibility with match: Visibility with candle: There is a major problem here... A candle is hardly any brighter than a match!<<

A classic case of a 21st century internet thinking over reality, I'm afraid.

Every single person who heard Deimshitz's story, read it or had it read to them in 1888 was far more expert on the subject of matches and candles than you. They would have grown up with them. They would have used them to some degree on a daily basis. Had Deimshitz's story not rung true about matches and candles he would have been sprung straight away.

My advice is actually try it.

I grew up in my early years on a remote(ish) farm where electricity could be sporadic, matches, candles and paraffin lights were often resorted to. There is nothing odd or unusual in what Deimshitz claims to have been able to see.