stuck in Dutfield's yard ?

[Malcolm X]

you dont know what she really saw that night...eagle or not, nobody saw sweet anything that i call ``concrete`` that night.... a mystery or what!

but what is odd is Eddowes later on, they're both the same; for sure... JTR killed both.

Stride should've walked off after BS, BECAUSE REMAINING THERE was far too risky, because not knowing anything about the type of person JTR is, is to trust nobody, let alone that yob that just walked off.

in that dark location, to hang back in Dutfields yard is a reciper for disaster, because you cant see anyone suddenly sneek around the corner and grab you, it's too close, especially if it's the same guy from 5 minutes earlier.... because the only guy that can suddenly grab you, if you're waiting outside a door in near pitch blackness, with noise coming from out of the window above, is somebody who ALREADY KNOWS YOU'RE THERE!... everyone else will walk buy... UNLESS EDDOWES will still outside, because if not, THE KILLER knew she was there in the shadows already.

i want everyone to think carefully about this.... because where she was actually waiting is critical, it's so easy for JTR to walk by, plus you and i and to not notice anything down there, or to even look, or to even care if there's an open yard there and this is what is odd.

JTR targeted this location

[Wickerman]

Yes good point there Wickerman about the wicker gate - but then I guess you must be an expert?

Wicket, my dear friend, wicket (not Wicker), from the Old English "wican", to allow "access", or "to yield".

Here endeth,..etc. etc.


Jon S.

[lynn cates]

excelsior

Hello Mike. Thanks. That plaster might come in handy since I have been given to understand that I am a bit cracked. (heh-heh)

“The suggestion is yes, that all 3 lied, albeit to greater and lesser amounts. Louis may have lied about his arrival time and to whom he went and what he did upon his arrival. Eagle actually hedged his statement on the stand remarking that he "couldn’t be sure a body wasn’t there" when he passed around 12:40, by his own account. And Lave missed Eagle at 12:40 at the gate when they were both supposedly there so it’s no surprise Fanny did.”

Ah, I had assumed you meant made up from whole cloth. I have often wondered whether Lave or Eagle had seen a bit more than they had told. Of course, the time they gave might well be nearly correct.

“I do not believe that Fanny was at the door continuously, but as she stated very early on, she was at the door "off and on" from 12:30 until 1...perhaps continuously from 12:50 until 1am. She did see the young couple and she did see Goldstein. Brown saw the young couple. She heard boot steps. She saw and heard.”

Very well, I can live with that. But if she missed PC Smith and Liz with the young chap, she missed what I consider the very best and most reliable sighting of the night.

“Very true, however the ones that had reason to mark their time by clock shortly before their involvement in this drama can be assumed to have been close to accurate in their estimates.”

Well, this is a tad optimistic. My point is that such behaviour does not tend to breed certainty.

“I’m not sure that Isaac needed one Lynn, but I do know that all the men that night gave statements and it’s probable that many did not speak English. Someone translated. Which raises an interesting sidebar....Goldstein. We know he came in with a translator I believe on the Tuesday night and his statement verified Fanny Mortimer's Black Bag man. But do we know why he was there for certain?”

Actually, I think that K’s distance can be reconciled, PROVIDED we take feet for yards. Being less than fully adept at English, he may have unknowingly equivocated.

Goldstein? I presume that he felt a bit of discomfort at the Mortimer story and wished to clear the air.

“ Here’s the thing...IF the kill takes place at around 12:40-12:45...really, on the earlier side of that...and the killer goes into the club via the side door...he could leave via the front door minutes later and walk past the gate just looking in and moving along.”

Can’t disagree with that. Of course, that would rule out any possible witness from any club member.

“I think the body, and I have no way of knowing from which part but I assume her head, since her feet bottoms face the gates...was 18 feet from the side door. That means she was near the wall, behind the left gate slightly ajar, her feet inches from the gate. I believe the known measurements bear out the statement Lynn.”

OK, but my point was that it should be only 10 feet from her carotid to the back door—not 15.

“Well Eagle could have arrived when he said he did and simply lied about what happened as he
arrived . . .“

I can live with that.

“ . . . and Lave could have been there too...but he was there before Eagle arrived also and looking out into the street from the gate...perhaps Lave felt someone might have seen him doing that. Maybe he was looking out into the street when Eagle arrives and sees the few men gathered around the dying woman inside the gates.”

I’m OK with that too. Of course, if there were several people there, it would be likely that one would let the cat out of the bag.

“Point summary is that cumulatively we have stories that do not corroborate each other, both in timing and action. There is a story that is supported by every high ranking member of the Jewish Men’s Club onsite as well as a phantom witness account that suggests Liz Stride was not on their property when she met her likely killer, and the club had nothing to do with the event. It also suggests 2 men as possible accomplices, gentiles, and likely antisemitic. All of the accounts most critical are from senior members without any corroboration from outside sources.”

Indeed. But again, with many cooks, the broth could be spoiled. It would be difficult to keep a secret given so much involvement.

“The other story, created by the accounts of PC Smith, Fanny Mortimer, James Brown, Edward Spooner, a young couple and several club members that night by virtue of their published statements, suggests that Liz Stride was probably inside the passageway and out of sight for Fanny Mortimer and James Brown and the young couple for most of that last 25 minutes and that despite all accounts that stated the yard was empty, it was evidently not.”

OK, but what was Liz doing in the yard?

“I believe at the least they must be considered accomplices because their story, self serving and desperate, allowed a killer to go unpunished. I think they knew what happened, maybe were not at fault, but had to make it look as nice as can be for their own survival.”

I can live with that as well. But accomplice is a bit too strong in my book.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Aaaaahhh - wickerman - correction accepted

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn, all,

Im still tired from my last post , so Ill just address a couple of comments you made. Im encouraged by your acquiescence on a few suggestions and I can see that at least in principle, we see a similar situation here.

I agree with you that of all the witnesses for the last 30 minutes in Strides life PC Smith is one we can assume was trained to report a sighting properly. I believe he saw Liz, and someone from the club or the Arbeter Fraint at 12:35am.

No-one that I can trust sees Liz Stride alive on the street after PC Smith.

So...Why would Liz then head into the passageway? The $64,000 question. What was she doing there in the first place? Why would someone kill her?

I can see 3 semi-reasonable scenarios and some less so. One is that she was there to meet a member still in the club, socially. She plans to stay with that person that night. She is mistaken for a police informant, or, possibly refuses an offer to move back into the yard for some "alone time", and in a brief altercation some angry thug cuts her throat, a thug known by and possibly hired by the club. The bruises on her shoulders may have been from hard pokes.

Two, Liz IS working for the police, who may have approached her when she recently became gainfully employed by the local Jews, looking to use her access to them as a way of spying on them. The club was known as an anarchist club, consider it undercover work perhaps. We know that some Unfortunates were used by the police in this manner. Someone just acts a little hastily when faced with her spying there.

Three, Liz is there to work for someone at the club that night, seeing as it was the start of the Jewish High Holidays. She made no plans for her stay that night because she probably intended to stay in the maids room at her employers. She is seen as suspicious and in a short exchange someone loses their cool and slices her.

As you can see by my admission that I consider these reasonable scenarios, I dont believe that Strides death is likely anything more than an unfortunate and rapid series of misunderstandings and one mean thug. Her cashous indicate to me that she was unaware of the danger until it was too late, thats why I see a short exchange with her killer. In a brief period a stranger can be the killer...if she is talking with him longer than that she may have known him. I dont see that here myself.

All the best,
Michael

[lynn cates]

suggestions

Hello Mike. Thanks.

For #1, I am happy to have Liz meeting someone at the club (see my re-enactment); however, it is difficult to see a sequence of events leading to her rapid demise.

For #2, IF she were an informant, then she should have gone home around 11.30 when the non-social part of the meeting ended.

For the last, I thought that Yom Kippur had ended about a week or two previously? At any rate, a believable sequence of events is difficult to construct.

But I am always open to suggestion.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I agree with you that of all the witnesses for the last 30 minutes in Strides life PC Smith is one we can assume was trained to report a sighting properly. I believe he saw Liz, and someone from the club or the Arbeter Fraint at 12:35am.

In times like today where customary dress is unusual it might not seem persuasive that a man wearing a Deerstalker should be English. But I think, given the class system in the late 19th century, a Jew will typically dress like a Jew and is less likely to wear a hat like a Deerstalker, which is distinctly English.

The only reason Smith's 'suspect' is suggested to be a member of the club is because of the newspaper parcel. Though what possible connection that makes to the club is "in the eye of the beholder" I guess.

"Mr Deerstalker", was carrying a parcel wrapped in newspaper, not a bundle of newspapers, or a bundle of flyers. If we choose to accept PC Smith was the "only one trained to report a sighting properly", lets not then assume he was not reporting what he saw accurately.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

headgear

Hello Jon.

"In times like today where customary dress is unusual it might not seem persuasive that a man wearing a Deerstalker should be English. But I think, given the class system in the late 19th century, a Jew will typically dress like a Jew and is less likely to wear a hat like a Deerstalker, which is distinctly English."

On the other hand, a bowler is distinctly British, yet many Jews have worn them.

"The only reason Smith's 'suspect' is suggested to be a member of the club is because of the newspaper parcel. Though what possible connection that makes to the club is "in the eye of the beholder" I guess."

I'm not sure that's the only reason. If you compare the description to the sketches of Dimshits and Eagle in "Lloyds Weekly" I think you will see points of similarity. The club members were frequently young, small and rather dark.

""Mr Deerstalker", was carrying a parcel wrapped in newspaper, not a bundle of newspapers, or a bundle of flyers."

Indeed. But what WAS the parcel? Why cannot papers be rolled up inside one another?

Cheers.
LC

[Beowulf]

Well, forgive me, but the title of this column, 'stuck in Dutfield's yard' made me think of the old song, Down at Papa Joe's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlcSePMde_k

Of which I know has nothing to do with Jack, heheh. However, when I read the title of the column now it's to this tune, aack

And, btw; I wondered the same thing

[Wickerman]

On the other hand, a bowler is distinctly British, yet many Jews have worn them.

True, but both the bowler & top-hat were adopted world-wide, so either one is no indication of nationality. The deerstalker though was more of a local tradition, and generally worn by a narrow segment of society. It was not common across all classes is what I'm trying to say.

I'm not sure that's the only reason. If you compare the description to the sketches of Dimshits and Eagle in "Lloyds Weekly" I think you will see points of similarity.

Indeed I already have, which to my mind speaks more to the abilities, or lack thereof, of the artist rather than a realistic depiction of two unrelated people....they look like twins!

""Mr Deerstalker", was carrying a parcel wrapped in newspaper, not a bundle of newspapers, or a bundle of flyers."

Indeed. But what WAS the parcel? Why cannot papers be rolled up inside one another?

Are we saying that, "I think he was a club member, therefore the parcel was newsprint"?
Or, "the evidence suggests the parcel was newsprint, therefore he may have been a club member"?

It seems to me that both are assumptions, one being used to support the other.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello again,

Jon, the parcel that was described was roughly the size of the paper that was printed in Dutfields Yard, and since there was a printing press in Dutfields Yard, and Liz was seen just outside the property with someone with a parcel of that unusual length wrapped in newspaper...its not too much of a stretch to assume the individual came from that address. And Liz seemed to know him.

Lynn, all that need happen is something unpredictable...like like being approached by a surly thug in the yard acting as security that night as she was about to have a cashous while waiting, he tries to suggest they go somewhere quiet, she demurs stating that she is waiting for someone and not available tonight, or maybe she just tells him to get lost or worse....thug takes offense, pokes her in the chest with her back against the wall warning her about her mouth, she fears for her safety, slips past him and starts for the gate, he grabs her scarf, twists and pulls, falls, then reaches down... and slits her throat.

Sounds a bit like what Israel said happened outside the gates..until that end bit, doesnt it?

I think Liz was either roughly treated by a thug she refused to service, killed because she was thought to be spying, or killed because she was spying. When there is little to go on other than its probable her brief attack was a surprise, and rapid,... a knee jerk reaction by her killer seems probable to me. Reacting to seeing someone he thinks is spying, or someone shunning him.

Oh, and I believe the High Holidays that Fall began on the next day, Sunday.

Best regards,
Michael

[Bridewell]

The Cachous

Her cashous indicate to me that she was unaware of the danger until it was too late,

I think so, but, to me, more than anything, they indicate that she was meeting someone - someone for whom it was important to have fresh breath. She didn't have much money, but had spent a little of what she had on breath fresheners. She had them in her hand, so had either just met the person concerned or anticipated doing so at any moment. My $64,000 question would be:

Who was she so anxious to impress - and what happened to him?

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

hypothetico-deductive procedure

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Fair enough. No need, then, to pursue, #1 & #2.

"Are we saying that, "I think he was a club member, therefore the parcel was newsprint"?
Or, "the evidence suggests the parcel was newsprint, therefore he may have been a club member"?"

Neither, I should think. Rather, I would prefer to ask the question, "Given the proximity of the club and the members who were in various stages of leaving, would it be more likely that such a member/attendee should be there chatting up Liz, or a total stranger?"

Once that is answered, one looks for confirmatory evidence--like the "Arbeter Fraint's" size. That's hypothetico-deductive procedure. Of course, the initial hypothesis was Tom Wescott's.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Thugs R Us

Hello Mike. Thanks.

Not bad. Not sure about the security part, though. A bad thug-type is not a bad idea; nor, is a misunderstanding.

I may need to look up that holiday in 1888.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

It was I.

Hello Colin. I'm with you. What happened to the lad? Well, if you were in his shoes, would you like to come forward?

Cheers.
LC