Diemschutz' pony and cart - an obstruction to proceedings?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>"Louis Diemschutz (Daily Mail): 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"

Do you really believe that grapes are mistaken for this:<<

As a general rule, I don't believe anything the Daily Mail says.

This post from 2010 includes a quote from the Daily News. Snippet:

Then I saw that there was a woman lying there. At that time I took no further notice, and didn't know whether she was drunk or dead. All I did was to run indoors and ask where my missis was because she is of weak constitution, and I did not want to frighten her.

"...a woman lying there" means just that. She was not "lying back near the gate".
The quote suggests that no movement of pony and cart occurs, nor does it initially stop outside the door.
For obvious reasons, if the cart is initially parked outside the door, then the prodding of the body could only occur if Diemschutz does this as the pony and cart are still moving. There is no evidence to support this.

>>Surprised Michael W Richards hasn't contributed to this thread !! Ha ha<<

So am I!

Particularly as Fanny Mortimer has now been declared as "jack the ripper".

Not Jill the Ripper, but in regard to Elizabeth Stride's murder, she was up to her neck in it.
She lent the killers a scarf to help carry out the murder ha ha

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

I too would very much doubt it was a coincidence or just happenstance.

It would be for practical reasons.

If either the killer or Mrs Stride were entering the passage to have sex, having it against a gate would rattle the gate attracting attention. As described at the inquest, the area by the back door was well lit. The only potentially "safe" sex/murder site was in the small area where the body was found.

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

William Wess at inquest:

[Coroner] Do low women frequent Berner-street? - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.
[Coroner] But have you observed them nearer the club? - No.
[Coroner] Or in the club yard? - I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.

Diemschutz at inquest:

[Coroner] Have you ever seen men and women together in the yard? - Never.
[Coroner] Nor heard of such a thing? - No.

So rather than Liz taking Jack to the spot, could she have been enticed to go there?
What could have been used to entice her there? Grapes?

[drstrange169]

>>"Louis Diemschutz (Daily Mail): 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"

Do you really believe that grapes are mistaken for this:<<

As a general rule, I don't believe anything the Daily Mail says.

[drstrange169]

Hello Spider,


>>The Coroners Report also states:<<

There is no known coroner's report. What you are quoting is a highly edited, Times journalist's, coverage of the inquest.



>>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."



>>Surprised Michael W Richards hasn't contributed to this thread !! Ha ha<<

So am I!

Particularly as Fanny Mortimer has now been declared as "jack the ripper".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re Fanny Mortimer.

I can understand Isaac Kozebrodsky hearing about grapes from Louis Diemschutz - they are both club members.
But what about Mrs. Mortimer? She was not a club member as far as I know.
Therefore, how does she "know" about the (non-existent grapes)?

This is my vote for the most under-appreciated quote in the whole subject area:

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.

So in the precise half-hour leading up to the murder, she is nearby, standing aimlessly at her door, looking out (as you do).
How is that not an almost perfect description of someone keeping watch?
She gives not one but two fairly exact times, and therefore a time-span, so she surely has her eye on the clock.
And there's that reference to 1AM again - the planned murder time.

I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by.

"I had just gone indoors..." - so she is more or less outside, for no apparent reason, so there is nothing for her to do but observe.
Was it usual to refer to the "the Socialist's Club" by that name, or is she friendly with some of the Socialists?

A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.

This quotes suggests that she was in the right position to see people enter the gates, but in spite of looking out of her house for almost all of the half hour period, she neither sees nor hears activity near the gates. Fascinating!

It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag...

Bold 'man' should be 'person' - that's a Freudian slip.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart.

Thanks Detective Mortimer.

If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.

So why didn't you?
On the other hand, why would you? You didn't see anyone go in, did you?

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.

That's a bit rich coming from you Fanny, but maybe they bribed her also?

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.

Actually Fanny, there were no grapes. Where did you get that idea from? Did someone tell you to say that?

A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

So you did see some people?
Surely if it were quiet enough for the steward's wife to hear a noise, then the couple must have noticed something?
What do you think, Fanny?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

drstrange:

Louis Diemschutz (Daily Mail): 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

Do you really believe that grapes are mistaken for this:

Dr Phillips: The left arm was extended from elbow, and a packet of cachous was in the hand. Similar ones were in the gutter. I took them from the hand and gave them to Dr. Blackwell. The right arm was lying over the body, and the back of the hand and wrist had on them clotted blood.

So Louis got the left hand spot on, but for the right hand he was so deluded he mistook globules of dried blood on the back side, for grapes in the enclosed palm? That is far-fetched. Even more so if the grapes were green!

As I've already noted, Fanny Mortimer wasn't there when Blackwell opened Mrs Strides hand, the gates were closed at that time.

That she mentions grapes when not having witnessed them in the hand, cannot simply be dismissed as her mindlessly repeating a rumor. Besides, who started the rumor? Diemschutz? For what gain?
That 3 witnesses mention grapes that were never there, cannot just be shrugged off. It is a major anomaly that IMO, deserves more attention, not less.

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."

So does he park pony & cart, or alternatively; "my cart passed the body" - on its own?
Clearly that first sentence omits a word: "When I got down my cart [had] passed the body."
When the cart stops moving, he is close enough to prod the object (or so he says), and when he jumps down, he is about a foot from Stride's head.
That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap to the kitchen door. ha ha

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

Except that he didn't leave it there, or move it there. He ran inside to find his wife.
The vague "left it ..." reference is merely an attempt to resolve the friction between...

[Coroner] You did not disturb it? - No. I went into the club and asked where my wife was.

...and the period when the throng of people have gathered around the body, but pony and cart have "magically" disappeared.
Louis almost pulls it off, but leaves us begging the question: Why bother sir? Just go and find your wife and move the pony and cart at your next convenience. Anyone who was cool, calm and collected (and conscientious) enough to firstly attend to pony & cart, would ironically be a "good" candidate for a serial killer!

Regarding Stride's feet and their close proximity to the gate edge, I was thinking along lines such as; allow the gates to be closed quickly if necessary, but keep her as far from the side door view as possible (which also explains both her closeness to club wall and inline position relative to it). Can you think of a better position to hide her from eyes both outside the gate and inside the club, without dragging her right out the back? She is perfectly placed, in that regard. Coincidence?

His observation about the dress is noted when Dr Blackwell is examining her under the light of the police bullseye lanterns. And even then he makes it clear he is unsure.

I can see your point of view, but I'm not totally convinced.

[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.

Pre-bold are initial observations - when police arrive he sees something else.

[Spider]

>>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.

The Coroners Report also states:


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”.



Surprised Michael W Richards hasn't contributed to this thread !! Ha ha

[drstrange169]

[drstrange169]

>> 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<<

Once again you've failed to read the sequence as it was told.

After striking the match and running inside, all Deimshitz says he knew was,

"I could not get sufficient light to see exactly what it was. I could, however, see that there was the figure of some person lying there. I could tell by the dress that it was a woman."

On coming out again with others, the blood is seen and the police searched for.

"I then took a candle and went out at once, and by the candlelight I could see that there was blood about before I reached the body. I did not touch the body, but went off at once for the police."

His observation about the dress is noted when Dr Blackwell is examining her under the light of the police bullseye lanterns. And even then he makes it clear he is unsure.

"The doctor arrived about ten minutes after the constable arrived. ... - Did you notice if her clothes were in order? In perfect order as far as I could see."

The cut in her neck was not visible to anyone until Spooner lifts Mrs Strides head. Remember, the cut was exactly along the line of the scarf around Mrs Strides neck.

"When I returned a man that we met in Grove-street, and who came back with us, took hold of the head, and as we lifted it up I first saw the wound in the throat."

"There was a long incision in the neck, which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. " Dr. Blackwell.


>>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'm afraid you are grossly misrepresenting what happened as described by the witnesses.

[DJA]

If OP was to read the Inquest,as previously suggested,the reason for the pony shying to the left would be obvious.....

"The deceased was lying on her left side obliquely across the passage, her face looking towards the right wall. Her legs were drawn up, her feet close against the wall of the right side of the passage. Her head was resting beyond the carriage-wheel rut, the neck lying over the rut. Her feet were three yards from the gateway. Her dress was unfastened at the neck."

From the position of the body,Jack attacked with Stride between him and the gate.
Either she followed him into the yard or he gained access through the club.My money is on the former.
The last thing Stride did was accept the tissue containing cashous using her left forefinger and thumb.Jack has then strangled her.
The cachous were for her bottom lip.They obviously knew each other.
Strongly suspect BS man was security for a blackmail payoff.Most likely a Royal Engineer named Carter (refer Eddowes' handbill).
He had left without payment which would explain the scuffle.

[drstrange169]

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

I too would very much doubt it was a coincidence or just happenstance.

It would be for practical reasons.

If either the killer or Mrs Stride were entering the passage to have sex, having it against a gate would rattle the gate attracting attention. As described at the inquest, the area by the back door was well lit. The only potentially "safe" sex/murder site was in the small area where the body was found.

[drstrange169]

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

It's all there in his statements, you just don't seem to be reading them.

[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.

[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.

[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....