Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here is Elizabeth Stride. Let's see if she fits into the accepted story.

Name: Elizabeth Sarah Jane Stride

Sex: F

Birth: ABT 1832, Minster in Sheppey, Kent

Death: UNKNOWN

Father: Thomas Stride b: ABT 1796
Mother: Eleanor Beauchamp b: ABT 1800

Grandfather: James Stride b: 1759

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––

Name: John Thomas Stride

Sex: M

Birth: 8 FEB 1827 in Sheerness, Kent

Death: 24 OCT 1884 in The Sick Asylum, Poplar, Bromley, Middlesex, London

Census: 1861 Minster in Sheppey, Kent

Census: 1871 178 High Street, Poplar, London

Occupation: 1861 joiner

Occupation: 1871 Carpenter

Father: William Stride b: 1784
Mother: Eleanor Elizabeth Monk b: 1794

Grandfather: James Stride b: 1759

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––

Thomas and William Stride were brothers.

This makes John and Elizabeth Stride first cousins. Cousin marriage was a common practice among pre-industrial propertiedclasses, and usually arranged by the families for economic reasons. Itcontinued as a marriage pattern among middle-class Victorians until the late 19th Century.

At Elizabeth Stride's inquest Mary Malcolm, Michael Kidney and Charles Preston averaged her age at 36 [b. circa 1852]. But Sven Olssen, clerk at the Swedish Church, London, said Stride was 45 years of age—born Elisabeth Gustafsdotter, 27th November 1843, in Torslanda parish, north of Gothenburg, Sweden. Modern research has discovered that Elisabeth Gustafsdotter's father was Gustaf Ericsson and her mother Beatta Carlsdotter.

On 10th July 1866 Elisabeth Gustafsdotter [now aged 22] was registered at the Swedish Church, Prince's Square, St George-in-the-East, as an unmarried woman.

On 7th March 1869 Elizabeth [now aged 25] married John Thomas Stride [now aged 42].

She was described on the marriage certificate as Elizabeth Gustifson, spinster, daughter of Frederick Augustus Gustifson, labourer.

John Stride was living at 21 Munster Street, Regent's Park, London, and Elizabeth at 67 Gower Street, London.

The 1871 Census lists John Stride, Carpenter, 178 Poplar High Street.

In December 1881 Elizabeth would have been aged 38.

Or possibly around 48—the age on her admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary in December of 1881—



By 1888, Elizabeth Stride [cousin] would have been around 55 years of age, but at her inquest Malcolm, Kidney and Preston averaged her age at 36; and the March/April 1881 Census tells us a different story—



She was now 34 years of age, born Stockholm, making her aged 41 in 1888.

But, more importantly, if Elizabeth Stride was Elisabeth Gustafsdotter why would she give her birthplace as Stockholm, almost 300 miles from Gothenburg. Also, why did she give her father's name [Gustaf Ericsson] as Frederick Augustus?

Perhaps in honour of John Stride's younger brother who had died eleven years earlier—

Name: Frederick Augustus Stride

Sex: M

Birth: 8 NOV 1829 in Sheerness, Kent

Death: OCT 1858 in Sheerness, Kent

Christening: 8 FEB 1837 Bible Christian, Sheerness Circuit, Kent C068621

Burial: 31 OCT 1858 Sheerness Cemetery, Halfway Rd, Sheerness, Kent.

So who was it who died in Dutfield’s Yard?

Simon

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fascinating!

It's interesting to compare the estimated age of the victim, given to the press by a couple of the witnesses at the scene, to that supposed by witnesses at the inquest.

To press:

Diemschitz: I should think the woman was about 27 or 28 years old. I fancy she was of light complexion.
Hoshberg: I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age.

At inquest:

Malcolm: She was thirty-seven years of age last March.
Preston: She said once that she was thirty-five.
Kidney: Between thirty-six and thirty-eight years.

So it looks like 37 would be a good bet here, versus the two eyewitnesses estimating about 27 (so just a little older than themselves).

What do you suppose has happened, Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi, NBFN,

I couldn't possibly say.

However, it strikes me that something odd took place in Dutfield's Yard, something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the "Ripper" murders.

But we knew that already.

Regards,

Simon

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thanks Simon.

It's worth noting that the Irish Times reporter who seems to see the victim at the mortuary, gives quite a different estimate of age...

The body of the murdered woman, which now lies in St. George's Mortuary, close to St. George's Parish Church, presents a dreadful spectacle. It is the corpse of a woman about 40 years of age, and, as it lies on the slab, exhibits prominently a fearful wound on the throat.

Arbeter Fraint seems to have a fairly strong opinion on the victim's identity:

The grand jury consists of 12 men, who are selected from among respectable members of the community.
It wasn’t until Tuesday that anyone knew who the murdered woman was. All that was known was that she belonged to the unfortunate street women and was known as “Tall Lisa”. On Tuesday she was identified by her sister, Maria Malcolm, the wife of a tailor.
Her sister, the woman murdered, was 38 years old and had been married to one, named Vots [Watts?]. This person was a son of a wealthy wine merchant in Bath. They [he and his wife] did not get along and he left her. They had two children: one boy and one girl. The girl died and the boy is in boarding school. Since she had been separated from her husband, approximately eight years ago, she began to drink and later also began to lead a licentious life. For the last three years she visited her sister every Saturday, and she [her sister] used to help support her with a few shillings. During those three years, the murdered woman did not fail to visit her sister for [even] one Saturday. The last Saturday she did not come. That made her sister uneasy. On Sunday, when she heard about the murder, she went to the morgue to see the murdered woman and she identified her as her sister.

The nickname 'Long Liz' appears 8 times in the DT inquest testimony, so the reference to 'Tall Lisa' is surely not just a careless mistake.
So who is Lisa?

[MrBarnett]

Simon, Where are you seeing ‘Frederick’ on the marriage cert?

[Kattrup]

By 1888, Elizabeth Stride [cousin] would have been around 55 years of age, but at her inquest Malcolm, Kidney and Preston averaged her age at 36; and the March/April 1881 Census tells us a different story

how does the inquest of one woman relate to the age of another? Cousin Liz would have been around 55 “but” the Long Liz inquest estimates another age. How would the testimony of the inquest witnesses negate the birth year of cousin ES?

Why do you include Malcolm’s estimate, she was talking about someone else entirely?

Also, what “different story” is being told - an age estimate is just an estimate. Since you already know the census age info from 1881 is wrong, what’s the point?

However, it strikes me that something odd took place in Dutfield's Yard, something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the "Ripper" murders.

But we knew that already.

How do we know that?

So you can’t possibly say what happened, but is it possible for you to say why you think it relevant to post about John Thomas Stride’s cousin? Besides her name, does she have any bearing on the Ripper-case?
It would seem you somehow believe that she and not ES née Gustafsdotter was killed, is that correct?

[MrBarnett]

For the record, John Thomas Stride was born in February, 1821 and his cousin, Elizabeth, in December, 1831.

There was an Elizabeth Stride, aged 17 according to the GRO, who died in Sheppy in 1850. And, according to the census, there were only 2 Elizabeth Strides living there in 1841: one being JT’s mother, the other his cousin. Unless someone has seen the 1850 death cert and ruled it out, there’s a chance that it relates to the cousin.

As for why Liz might have been less than precise about where she had been born in Sweden, perhaps her registration as a prostitute in Gothenburg might have played a part in it.

And the confusion of her father’s name on the marriage cert could well have been as a result of Liz’s poor English at the time, her illiteracy and the slightly confusing (to an English registrar) Swedish patronomic system.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup,

It may be correct. It may be incorrect.

But it's still worthy of investigation.

For all we know, the victim may have been Elizabeth Perren/Watts/Sneller/Stokes.

Regards,

Simon

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

It may be correct. It may be incorrect.

But it's still worthy of investigation.

For all we know, the victim may have been Elizabeth Perren/Watts/Sneller/Stokes.

Regards,

Simon

Just to summarize your answer:
It may be correct, but it may also be incorrect, that you believe Cousin ES to be the murder victim, rather than ES Gustafsdotter.

Got it, thanks
I do wonder how you imagine discussing things with such vagueness, though.

“For all we know” - so despite our knowledge of the case, e.g. our knowledge of the people who saw the body in the mortuary and identified the victim as Elizabeth Stride, you believe it possible the victim was someone else.

Do you believe the people id’ing her were mistaken or do you believe they were lying?


Also, you said we already “know” that there was something odd going on in Dutsfield’s yard.

how is it that we know that?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup

Two inquest witnesses [Elizabeth Tanner and Michael Kidney] testified that the roof of [Swedish] Elizabeth Stride's mouth was missing/injured.

Doctor Phillips inquest testimony—

"On the last occasion I was requested to make a re-examination of the body of the deceased, especially with regard to the palate, and I have since done so at the mortuary, along with Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Gordon Brown. I did not find any injury to, or absence of, any part of either the hard or the soft palate."

By that metric, the victim could not have been the [Swedish] Elizabeth Stride.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Kattrup

Two inquest witnesses [Elizabeth Tanner and Michael Kidney] testified that the roof of [Swedish] Elizabeth Stride's mouth was missing/injured.

Doctor Phillips inquest testimony—

"On the last occasion I was requested to make a re-examination of the body of the deceased, especially with regard to the palate, and I have since done so at the mortuary, along with Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Gordon Brown. I did not find any injury to, or absence of, any part of either the hard or the soft palate."

By that metric, the victim could not have been the [Swedish] Elizabeth Stride.

Hi Simon,
But Tanner didn't just say Stride had an injury to her mouth, she identified the body in the mortuary in part because of that injury;

"You are quite certain it is her? - Yes. I recognise the features. She told me that she lost the roof of her mouth at the time the Princess Alice went down, and I recognise her by that." - Morning Advetiser 4th Oct

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

Elizabeth Tanner identified a body at the mortuary which had a mouth defect/injury.

Doctor Phillips examined a body at the mortuary which had no mouth defect/injury.

Clearly they were not looking at the same body.

Regards,

Simon

[Kattrup]

Hi Joshua,

Elizabeth Tanner identified a body at the mortuary which had a mouth defect/injury.

Doctor Phillips examined a body at the mortuary which had no mouth defect/injury.

Clearly they were not looking at the same body.

Clearly they were, just looking at different parts.

Philips specifically looked at the palate, which was normal. Tanner looked at her missing front teeth and, believing Stride’s story of injury, repeated it.
I wonder why you mention Kidney’s initial testimony, since you know full well that he was later asked about it and stated he never examined her mouth?

So your theory is that there were two different bodies. Which of the witnesses at the inquest saw Swedish ES and which saw the Unknown Body, do you think? (I’m assuming you believe Swedish ES to be one of the bodies, if not, please say so)

Also, how is it that we know for sure that something odd was going on in Dutfield’s Yard?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Kattrup,

They were looking at different parts? Puhleeze.

STRIDE INQUEST—End of Day One [Monday 1st October 1888]—

[Coroner]—"The body has not yet been identified?"
[Inspector Reid]—"Not yet."
[Jury Foreman]—"I do not quite understand that. I thought the inquest had been opened on the body of one Elizabeth Stride."
[Coroner]—"That was a mistake. Something is known of the deceased, but she has not been fully identified. It would be better at present to describe her as a woman unknown. She has been partially identified. It is known where she lived. It was thought at the beginning of the inquest that she had been identified by a relative, but that turns out to have been a mistake."

Just to add to the confusion, Michael Kidney agreed with the coroner that Elizabeth Stride's mouth was defective. He also told the inquest, "On Monday I saw Mrs. Malcolm, who said the deceased was her sister. She is very like the deceased."

Their meeting on 1st October was prior to Mrs Malcolm's inquest appearance.

Regards,

Simon

[Kattrup]

STRIDE INQUEST—End of Day One [Monday 1st October 1888]—

[Coroner]—"The body has not yet been identified?"
[Inspector Reid]—"Not yet."
[Jury Foreman]—"I do not quite understand that. I thought the inquest had been opened on the body of one Elizabeth Stride."
[Coroner]—"That was a mistake. Something is known of the deceased, but she has not been fully identified. It would be better at present to describe her as a woman unknown. She has been partially identified. It is known where she lived. It was thought at the beginning of the inquest that she had been identified by a relative, but that turns out to have been a mistake."

What is it that you have a problem with? Since Mary Malcolm showed up, claiming the victim to be her sister and not Stride, it was necessary to take steps to ensure the correct identification.

Just to add to the confusion, Michael Kidney agreed with the coroner that Elizabeth Stride's mouth was defective. He also told the inquest, "On Monday I saw Mrs. Malcolm, who said the deceased was her sister. She is very like the deceased."

Their meeting on 1st October was prior to Mrs Malcolm's inquest appearance.

You mentioned Kidney earlier,

Two inquest witnesses [Elizabeth Tanner and Michael Kidney] testified that the roof of [Swedish] Elizabeth Stride's mouth was missing/injured.

and I asked why bring it up, he was afterwards questioned about Stride's mouth and stated that he never examined it, he'd just been told it was damaged. Since you know what he said, what is the point of mentioning his initial testimony? He was just asked if Stride's mouth was injured and he said yes -because as far as he knew it was. As you know, when specifically asked if he'd personally seen any damage, he said no.

Also, what is the relevance of Kidney's statement that Mrs. Malcolm is similar to Stride? Perhaps you could clarify whether you believe the "She is very like the deceased" refers to Mrs. Malcolm or to her sister?
Malcolm was talking about her sister, who was not dead at all. So how is her testimony relevant to anything about Stride?

Also, you stated that we know there was something odd going on in Dutfield's Yard. How is it that we know that?

Since you believe there were two bodies present in the mortuary, let's call them A and B where A is the body Tanner saw and B the body Philips saw, which other witnesses saw A and which saw B?
Was Philips aware that he was examining a different body than described by some witnesses or was he duped?

Returning to the OP, what is the relevance of bringing up Cousin Stride, since she's entirely unconnected to the case? You said we should see whether she fits into the accepted story - well, good news: she does, because she has no connection to the case.