Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Dirty lot.....A regular hell"
    Tell like it is Chuck!

    That's a really interesting find, it certainly appears that Israel and family were well established at the club. Could be plenty of innocuous reasons for him not featuring that night so maybe shouldn't read too much into that. Might be interesting to see if he crops up in Arbeiter Freint around the time?

    Maybe he'd ridden off on Andrews hoss?
    Them's the vagaries.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Thats not really an answer though is it, he still doesn't refer to a clock.

      If I recall, someone described a passage inside the house that led to the side door, to the right was a room, or the kitchen?

      The internal layout was probably the same as any house, likely that is what it was before the club took over. So, the main room may have been the front room of the house, the street door (front door) led to a passage that ran down the left side of the house to the side door.
      Wess didn't need to go into the ground floor main room to exit the club, he just came in from the yard via the side door, then down the passage to the front door, and out into the street.
      So he probably saw no clock, if there even was one in the main room.
      That's correct, it doesn't refer to there not being a clock for him to see. Victorian backdrop aside, it would be hard to argue that in places of gathering a clock wasn't present, and Fanny gave her times, therefore she referenced the time from somewhere, when she went indoors off and on that last half hour. That's what "nearly the whole time" means, in case someone takes umbridge at that. What you Jon and others are suggesting is that the uncorroborated witnesses should be used to establish timelines for that last half hour. And that at least 4 witness accounts that corroborate each other both in time and detail all either didn't have clocks or any timepieces to access. Or at least ones that had what you believe were the accurate times. And that explains a 20 minute variance?

      Im not going to pursue the obvious with anyone about this any further here, its doing an injustice to Simon for offering up an interesting thread for debate for one, and its getting rather tedious trying to bludgeon back a crowd with the facts as they are established...not as you might interpret them.

      Im pretty well versed in Victorian London ambiance and society Jon, no expert mind you, but over the past decades I have read a great deal about the period in general because of the cases interest, so assuming Im just not informed about who had watches, clocks, sundials or any other kind of timepiece, or that lack of synchronization of any timepieces allows for 20 minute variances in times given by people at the scene is a little insulting. But, as I said...this isn't about what the evidence says about arrival times of carts and horses, its about why we have 2 parties identifying the dead woman as different people despite being someone they know intimately.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
        "Dirty lot.....A regular hell"
        Tell like it is Chuck!

        That's a really interesting find, it certainly appears that Israel and family were well established at the club. Could be plenty of innocuous reasons for him not featuring that night so maybe shouldn't read too much into that. Might be interesting to see if he crops up in Arbeiter Freint around the time?

        Maybe he'd ridden off on Andrews hoss?
        I think it was one of Booth’s researchers, a Mr Dwane, who made the comment. He says something similar about the residents of Breezer’s Hill. He seems to have been very opinionated. Either that or he was parroting the opinions of his police minder. Some of his comments are quite amusing.

        Yes, there may be nothing sinister about Izzy G’s absence from the record, but as the caretaker, living and possibly working on the premises, you’d think he’d crop up somewhere.

        Comment


        • So, since we are having sidebar discussions I though we could redirect back to the thread a bit....

          I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. Did they assume that Kelly was related to her, did someone come forward we don't know about, or did they presume it was Mary Malcolm who was mistaken...and in the second case, if so why in heavens name would she have any place at that Inquest?
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            So, since we are having sidebar discussions I though we could redirect back to the thread a bit....

            I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. Did they assume that Kelly was related to her, did someone come forward we don't know about, or did they presume it was Mary Malcolm who was mistaken...and in the second case, if so why in heavens name would she have any place at that Inquest?
            Hello Michael

            I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

            I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

            but let’s have it again:
            Coroner Baxter adds to the doubts regarding Malcolm's identification before she even testified despite claims of being a sister of the victim. With 110 years of 20-20 hindsight regarding Elizabeth's real name, it might be difficult for us to understand why Malcolm was still permitted to offer her evidence at the inquest. To explain this, I defer to Stewart Evans. "At a Coroner's inquest proper identification of the deceased is only recognized when it is a proper LEGAL Identification of the body, by someone who was related in some way to the person TO the Coroner's officer and a written statement is taken to that effect." Hence, at this early stage in the case, since Malcolm claimed a blood relation to the victim, the court was compelled to hear her testimony. It should also be pointed out that Michael Kidney was only Stride's lover (and did not testify till 3 October). Hence, Malcolm's identification took precedence (till disproved)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

              Hello Michael

              I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

              I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

              but let’s have it again:
              A New Zealand paper is credited with publishing this the following December..."The sister of the poor woman Stride was a gin soddened virago, and identified her mutilated relative with ghoulish relish. From first to last this woman's transparent object was to turn the catastrophe to account somehow. So obvious did the past become that the coroner doubted whether she was the deceased's sister. Others, too, were sceptical on the point. But the story she told in the main proved accurate. Not one word of honest pity for the dead woman's shocking fate crossed her lips. Her own goodness and generosity to her poor sister was the never ending theme of her discourse, or would have been, if the coroner had not cut her short."[3]"

              So the premise is that Mary Malcom was presented as the de-facto ID going into the Inquest and Elizabeth Watts sudden appearance during the proceedings made that impossible ? What about the fact that multiple witnesses ID'd Stride her as the same person Michael Kidney did? If they thought she was grandstanding as the above insinuates, then why not hold off on the Inquest and verify precisely whom it was that was the victim first? Why have 2 different women claimed to be the victim at the Inquest? Isnt this just part of what Due Diligence is?
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                Hello Michael

                I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

                I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

                but let’s have it again:
                Unless Im mistaken the coroner gets his list of potentials from the police investigations and interviews. And I don't do linked pages Kattrup...if people are too lazy to look things up for themselves, so be it.

                This ID thing isn't a simple matter by the by. Its confusing, and mystifying.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • >> ...not a police whistle and Louis cart.<<

                  It seems when a witness says they are unsure, like Heshburg and his guess at the time, you claim they are sure.

                  Yet, when they say the are sure, like Heshburg saying he specifically heard a police whistle, you claim they are unsure.

                  Ultimately we need to go with actual information not personal conspiracy theories. Since Mortimer heard the cart after she went in and Spooner, nor anybody else for that matter, doesn't mention a cart passing after they arrived, your story disappears up its own speculation.


                  >> No-one saw anyone. And you've used the "deserted streets" from Fanny without then contrasting that with Israel Schwartz.The street cant be both.<<

                  Since I've always said I've had difficulties with Schwartz's story, I'm not sure what your point is.


                  >> Sure, Spooners time is subjective <<

                  There you go again, Spooner didn't say "a time" he made two guesses, the fact that you keep refusing to acknowledge this, says it all.


                  >> but handily we have 3 other witnesses to substantiate it. <<

                  You keep saying this , but you've yet to show us how anyone of your witnesses stated the time by a clock rather than simply guessing the time.

                  Neither do any of your witnesses guesses fit in with any of the independent witnesses:

                  Heshburg, proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt.

                  Kozebrodski, due to his poor English, doesn't give us a single direct quote to go by.

                  Who else?

                  On the other hand, Mortimer totally disproves your theory, full stop.

                  On top of her, story we can add:
                  Letchford's sister disproves your theory
                  Lave, if correct, disproves the story about people being in the yard at 20 to 1.
                  Brown hears and sees none of it.
                  The police and doctors are consistent with Diemshitz.
                  The kitchen staff are consistent with Diemshitz.
                  30 people in the room upstairs claim the alarm was raised after 1:00.
                  Two, possibly four people could confirm Wess's story.

                  What ever why you carve it up, your theory falls apart when the facts are inserted.


                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • >>Where do you imagine Israel Goldstein and his large household were situated?<<

                    I've always assumed they lived in one of the cottages like Mila the maid did. If children were in the club when police searched it, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • >>I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. <<

                      Police don't put people on the stand at an inquest, the coroner chooses the witnesses. One of the purposes of an inquest is to establish the identity of the deceased.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        >>Where do you imagine Israel Goldstein and his large household were situated?<<

                        I've always assumed they lived in one of the cottages like Mila the maid did. If children were in the club when police searched it, I'm sure we would have heard about it.
                        The 1891 census makes a clear distinction between the houses in the ‘stable yard’ and 40, BS itself. IG and his large clan were at no. 40.

                        Do you know if there’s a plan or a written description of the layout of the club?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          >>I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. <<

                          Police don't put people on the stand at an inquest, the coroner chooses the witnesses. One of the purposes of an inquest is to establish the identity of the deceased.
                          Really? Never heard that before, I thought it was to establish the cause of death by an identified, if only as a Jane Doe sort of thing, victim. I can see its a venue where the identifications are presented by the witnesses, didn't hear before that the identification of the victim, if unknown or in dispute, needs to be settled at the Inquest. Seems to me that should be done first.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Hello Gary,
                            No years distinction in the 1881 census, so who knows either way. By 1891 the club had radically changed, the militant Knights of Liberty taking over the premises and all club members kicked out a year later, due to council regulations. Wess gives a description of the rooms and there are a couple of articles about anarchist clubs that describe the layout.
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment



                            • https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/inf...quest_system/4


                              What is the purpose of an inquest?


                              An inquest is a public judicial inquiry to find the answers to a limited but important set of questions:
                              • Who the deceased was
                              • When and where they died
                              • The medical cause of their death
                              • How they came by their death
                              (my emphasis)
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • Hah! Should read, "No yard distinction in the 1881 census,"
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X