Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    I don't think I've said that she lied - but let's keep in mind that she did identify the victim as her sister, who then turned up alive and (somewhat) well. So she's definitely untrustworthy. As she says: "She could not answer all the questions put by the coroner because she was so upset, her memory failed her, but they had come into her mind since - she had reasons for not wishing to answer others." Sounds rather scam-like, "ooh I couldn't think of good answers yesterday but now I have!" She then proceeds to tell a story of how her sister was stabbed by her second husband who then flees to NZ, shipwrecking on the way.

    So Malcolm may have been confused, mentally ill or deceived. She may also have lied - and for what? To gain attention, to attempt some scam of sympathy, perhaps, or in order to get money for paper interviews.
    Perhaps she told the truth as best she knew it, but she got confused about what she'd heard about Stride from someone.


    How do we know Stride was the victim? Because she was identified be several people who know her personally over a long period of time.
    If Mary Malcolm lied, for any of the plausible reasons you offer, then it would have been odd for her to not 'identify' her sister, on her first visit to the mortuary.
    Having a look on three separate occasions obviously cast significant doubt on her identification.

    So moving to your next hypothesis - from what someone had she heard about Stride?

    Someone in the Flower & Dean lodging house, perhaps? Seems unlikely.

    Someone at work, including possibly at the Berner street club? She would be too busy to tell her life story.

    Michael Kidney? I can't think of a motive for him doing this.

    I can think of another possibility; whoever she had dinner with, on the last night of her life.

    Now who might that have been?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • #62
      [MA1002] Mrs. Ann Mill, the bed-maker at the lodging-house, stated that she had known the deceased for some years as "Long Liz," though until now she was never acquainted with her real name. Mrs. Stride came to the house after a long absence on Tuesday night, and she last saw her on Saturday evening, when she went out about seven. On that particular day whitewashers were in the house, and in the course of the morning she had assisted her (Mrs. Mill) by cleaning two of the rooms where the workmen had been. The deceased at the time told her she wished she had known it before, as she would have given further help. Mrs. Mill further mentioned that "Long Liz" had told her more than once that she was over 50 years of age. Finally, the old lady, who is verging on 80 years of age, said, "A better-hearted, better-natured, cleaner woman never lived, God bless her soul. Though a poor unfortunate, she worked when she could get it."
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #63
        This is a really fascinating post to follow, I have long been uneasy with the Stride case.
        Thank you very much!

        Comment


        • #64
          Having 2 sets of witnesses testify to the fact that within each set is a different person as the identified victim always has been mysterious. The story created by using all the witness statements is impossible, which is mysterious as well. Since this murder has always realistically represented a second killer at large its good that its finally being dissected a bit more.

          As Katrup has suggested that Mary Malcoms story is disingenuous, that would leave us with the Elizabeth Stride nee Gustavsdotter as we have been led to believe she was. That would still not explain the identifications by the age range, nor does it address why some recalled upper palate damage that was not seen by others.

          If you read over Mary Malcolms testimony closely, you'll see that she is able to answer specific questions easily, something only a very skilled liar would be able to pull off on the stand, and she is adamant about her identification. She had no doubt. Now, considering that Liz's face was not cut, and if she was shown to people to identify her perhaps only with a scarf covering the neck wound, I think that Liz would look still much like she did in life. Either Mary Malcolm lied, she was mistaken because her sister so closely resembled Liz Stride of Goteborg, or she was right. If she was right....then what becomes of this investigation? Do people still want her as one of the Canonicals, was this still a Double Event, and what of the witnesses that swore that they saw Liz Stride of Goteborg lying there.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            Having 2 sets of witnesses testify to the fact that within each set is a different person as the identified victim always has been mysterious. The story created by using all the witness statements is impossible, which is mysterious as well. Since this murder has always realistically represented a second killer at large its good that its finally being dissected a bit more.

            As Katrup has suggested that Mary Malcoms story is disingenuous, that would leave us with the Elizabeth Stride nee Gustavsdotter as we have been led to believe she was. That would still not explain the identifications by the age range, nor does it address why some recalled upper palate damage that was not seen by others.

            If you read over Mary Malcolms testimony closely, you'll see that she is able to answer specific questions easily, something only a very skilled liar would be able to pull off on the stand, and she is adamant about her identification. She had no doubt. Now, considering that Liz's face was not cut, and if she was shown to people to identify her perhaps only with a scarf covering the neck wound, I think that Liz would look still much like she did in life. Either Mary Malcolm lied, she was mistaken because her sister so closely resembled Liz Stride of Goteborg, or she was right. If she was right....then what becomes of this investigation? Do people still want her as one of the Canonicals, was this still a Double Event, and what of the witnesses that swore that they saw Liz Stride of Goteborg lying there.
            Stride or whoever she was was not a victim of JTR

            Everything about this murder is so different from all the others.

            Michael Kidney should be looked at more closely.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #66
              More on the question of Malcolm and Kidney meeting at the inquest, on the Monday (MM testified Tues, MK Wed).

              Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
              No, since I do not believe there was a meeting, so no information was exchanged. Kidney just says that he saw Malcolm, not that they spoke or anything. Probably they were both at the inquest and he saw her there
              Let's see if the inquest texts hold any any clues.

              After speaking of the man who kept a coffee-house at Poplar, the coroner asks Malcolm...

              [WB] Had the deceased lived with any man since then?

              Followed by this, in the DT:

              [MM] Not to my knowledge, but there is some man who says that he has lived with her.
              [WB] Have you ever heard of her getting into trouble with this man?
              [MM] No, but at times she got locked up for drunkenness. She always brought her trouble to me.


              In the DN:

              [MM] She did not to my knowledge live with anyone after that, but there is a man who says he has lived with her.

              So who had Kidney said this to, prior to testifying, if not Malcolm?
              There is only so much that can be explained away as 'hearing rumours'.

              Moving on, the issue of the adder bite is interesting.
              There is a mark on one the legs...

              [Dr Phillips] I did notice a black mark on one of the legs of the deceased, but I could not say that it was due to an adder bite.

              The foreman asks Malcolm...

              Had she any special marks upon her?

              Was this asked with, or without knowledge of Malcolm speaking of the mark on her sister's leg, to the policeman at the mortuary?

              [MM] Yes, on her right leg there was a small black mark.
              [WB] Have you seen that mark on the deceased?
              [MM] Yes.
              [WB] When did you see it?
              [MM] Yesterday morning.
              [WB] But when, before death, did you see it on your sister?
              [MM] Oh not for years. It was the size of a pea. I have not seen it for 20 years.
              [WB] Did you mention the mark before you saw the body?
              [MM] I said that I could recognise my sister by this particular mark.
              [WB] What was the mark?
              [MM] It was from the bite of an adder. One day, when children, we were rolling down a hill together, and we came across an adder. The thing bit me first and my sister afterwards. I have still the mark of the bite on my left hand.
              [WB (examining the mark)] Oh, that is only a scar.


              It gets more suspicious when considering the dress state of body.
              Irish Times reporter at the mortuary:

              She had on a black alpaca frock, a black jacket trimmed with fur, an old velveteen body, once black but now brown, and a crepe bonnet (some spare space in which had been filled up by a current copy of a London evening newspaper), white stockings, white stays, and side spring boots.​​​​​​​

              What part of her legs was actually visible?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #67
                "Stride or whoever she was was not a victim of JTR"

                Sweeping statement..........and your definitive evidence is?
                .

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  More on the question of Malcolm and Kidney meeting at the inquest, on the Monday (MM testified Tues, MK Wed).



                  Let's see if the inquest texts hold any any clues.

                  After speaking of the man who kept a coffee-house at Poplar, the coroner asks Malcolm...

                  [WB] Had the deceased lived with any man since then?

                  Followed by this, in the DT:

                  [MM] Not to my knowledge, but there is some man who says that he has lived with her.
                  [WB] Have you ever heard of her getting into trouble with this man?
                  [MM] No, but at times she got locked up for drunkenness. She always brought her trouble to me.


                  In the DN:

                  [MM] She did not to my knowledge live with anyone after that, but there is a man who says he has lived with her.

                  So who had Kidney said this to, prior to testifying, if not Malcolm?
                  There is only so much that can be explained away as 'hearing rumours'.

                  Moving on, the issue of the adder bite is interesting.
                  There is a mark on one the legs...

                  [Dr Phillips] I did notice a black mark on one of the legs of the deceased, but I could not say that it was due to an adder bite.

                  The foreman asks Malcolm...

                  Had she any special marks upon her?

                  Was this asked with, or without knowledge of Malcolm speaking of the mark on her sister's leg, to the policeman at the mortuary?

                  [MM] Yes, on her right leg there was a small black mark.
                  [WB] Have you seen that mark on the deceased?
                  [MM] Yes.
                  [WB] When did you see it?
                  [MM] Yesterday morning.
                  [WB] But when, before death, did you see it on your sister?
                  [MM] Oh not for years. It was the size of a pea. I have not seen it for 20 years.
                  [WB] Did you mention the mark before you saw the body?
                  [MM] I said that I could recognise my sister by this particular mark.
                  [WB] What was the mark?
                  [MM] It was from the bite of an adder. One day, when children, we were rolling down a hill together, and we came across an adder. The thing bit me first and my sister afterwards. I have still the mark of the bite on my left hand.
                  [WB (examining the mark)] Oh, that is only a scar.


                  It gets more suspicious when considering the dress state of body.
                  Irish Times reporter at the mortuary:

                  She had on a black alpaca frock, a black jacket trimmed with fur, an old velveteen body, once black but now brown, and a crepe bonnet (some spare space in which had been filled up by a current copy of a London evening newspaper), white stockings, white stays, and side spring boots.​​​​​​​

                  What part of her legs was actually visible?
                  The clothing would have been taken from the body and listed

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    [MM] On the Sunday morning when I read the accounts in the newspapers I thought it might be my sister who had been murdered. I had a presentiment that that was so. I came down to Whitechapel and was directed to the mortuary; but when I saw the body I did not recognise it as that of my sister.
                    [WB] How was that? Why did you not recognise it in the first instance?
                    [MM] I do not know, except that I saw it in the gaslight, between nine and ten at night. But I recognised her the next day.


                    Were there accounts in multiple Sunday morning papers?
                    Why such a long gap after thinking her sister had been murdered, and seeing the body (> 9 pm)?

                    The following quotes from the Morning Advertiser, Oct 4 (Thu).

                    At last the victim of the Berner-street murder has been identified beyond all doubt. A large number of persons have seen the body at the Cable-street mortuary, but up to yesterday no one had been able to say definitely that they recognized it. When, however, Mrs. Malcolm, of Holborn, on Tuesday told the coroner that she was certain the deceased was her sister, the interest and excitement greatly increased. Most of those present at the inquest probably had all their doubts removed by the witness’s firm expression of the belief that the deceased was her own flesh and blood; but her answers to the questions put to her by the coroner and Detective-inspector Reid led those gentlemen to come to the conclusion that the identification was not completely satisfactory. This led the coroner to suggest to the greatly-distressed witness that she might possibly see her sister, whose death she mourned, if she went to the usual rendezvous where they had met every Saturday afternoon, except that last Saturday, for the past three years. The witness was disinclined to adopt the coroner’s suggestion, and reiterated that she was quite certain that she had not been mistaken.

                    This is good evidence for Malcolm being involved in a scam, but why create doubt over her own identification, by failing to recognise the body on the first occasion?

                    However, yesterday another witness came forward, and swore that the body was that of Elizabeth Stride, with whom she had lived for the last three years. The evidence of this man - Michael Kidney - could not be doubted, as he confirmed the statements made by previous witnesses at the earlier stages of the inquiry. The police are now satisfied that the identification is complete, and that the body is that of Elizabeth Stride.

                    Then why not wrap up the inquest by the weekend?
                    Is it because they are still hoping to hear from a particular witness, whose whereabouts are, and subsequently continue to be, unknown?

                    Mrs. Malcolm is said to be as confident as ever. After the inquest yesterday she went into the Vestry-hall and showed a letter which she had received that morning, but which had no bearing whatever on the case. It was from a total stranger to the recipient; but she was, she said, quite certain that her husband could identify the writing, and that it might throw some light on the affair. Inspector Reid attached no importance to the document, and returned it to its owner, who went away apparently dissatisfied.

                    Mary went off in a huff!
                    But why does she have an anonymous person sending her information she thinks might be relevant to the investigation?

                    The police are busily engaged making inquiries with reference to the knife produced at the inquest yesterday, but however it came to be put on the steps of the house in the Whitechapel-road, it is certain that it could not have been there an hour before it was found, although the murder was committed twenty-four hours previously. What the motive for putting it there could be cannot be imagined; but owing to the blood upon the blade, and the blood stains upon the handkerchief which was tied round the handle, the police are not going to allow the matter to drop. It is not thought that the witness Michael Kidney is keeping back any important information, but should this be the case he will be reexamined to-morrow at the adjourned inquest.

                    So the police are still very interested in the knife, even though Dr Phillips doubts it is the murder weapon...

                    [WB] Is it such as knife as could have caused the injuries which were inflicted upon the deceased?
                    [Dr P] Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck, but it is not such a weapon as I should have fixed upon as having caused the injuries in this case; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision.


                    Given Phillips opinion on where the victim was when cut (on the ground where found), the knife, which would otherwise do the job nicely, would be too long - the blade alone is longer than the victim's distance to the wall.
                    On the other hand, if it were the murder weapon....
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The clothing would have been taken from the body and listed

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Dr Phillips: On Oct. 1, at three p.m., at St. George's Mortuary, present Dr. Blackwell and for part of the time Dr. Reigate and Dr. Blackwell's assistant; temperature being about 55 degrees, Dr. Blackwell and I made a post-mortem examination, Dr. Blackwell kindly consenting to make the dissection, and I took the following note: "Rigor mortis still firmly marked. Mud on face and left side of the head. Matted on the hair and left side. We removed the clothes. We found the body fairly nourished...

                      I think Mary was lying about seeing the adder bite mark.
                      So who told her about the mark on Stride's leg?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Hi Barnflatwyngarde,

                        A sweeping statement?

                        The evidence for Elizabeth Stride [or whomever] having been a victim of "Jack the Ripper" ranges from flimsy to non-existent.

                        Evening News, 1st October 1888—

                        “Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives—(so says Dr. Gordon [Brown], who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body)—it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.”

                        And as Wynne Baxter said in his summing-up on 23rd October 1888, by which time the Ripper scare was at full throttle—

                        "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre Square—possibly the work of an imitator . . ."

                        The only thing which made Stride a Ripper victim was the fortuitous arrival of the Saucy Jacky postcard.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Stride or whoever she was was not a victim of JTR

                          Everything about this murder is so different from all the others.

                          Michael Kidney should be looked at more closely.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Kidney seems to have attended the inquest on days he is not due to testify.
                          He must be missing work days to do this, at his own expense.
                          In a sense he is the opposite of Israel Schwartz - Kidney follows the whole proceeding first hand, whereas Schwartz is conspicuous by his absence.

                          Kidney asks to have a 'strange, young detective' at his disposal.
                          By 'strange', he probably means what JR suggested in #37 - a stranger to the area.
                          By 'young', he means someone who will blend in.
                          So what could Kidney possibly be referring to, other than wanting to infiltrate the Berner street club with an undercover D?
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                            The only thing which made Stride a Ripper victim was the fortuitous arrival of the Saucy Jacky postcard.
                            [IT01]
                            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. The head is slightly thrown over to the right, and the gaping orifice is so clearly scooped out that the divisions of the jugular veins and the windpipe can be easily seen. The knife or other implement with which the deed was committed must have been of large size and very keen, and the wound is so wide that there is room for the supposition that after the blade had been inserted it was partially turned and then drawn with great force from left to right. The vertebrae of the neck was scraped owing to the great force with which the weapon was wielded, and it is obvious that if the murderer had not been interrupted the poor creature would have been hideously mangled, for the savagery of her assailant is evidenced not alone by the terrible wound in her throat but also by two severe contusions on the head - one on the temple, the other on the cheek, which seem to point to the conclusion that he was proceeding to further outrage when some chance incident alarmed him and caused him to desist from his infamous work. With the exception of the injuries mentioned the body bore no signs of ill-usage.

                            This description of the injuries, suggests the murder was not just a 'domestic'.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                              Kattrup,
                              thanks for answers.

                              There is more detail about Stride's identification, in the Oct 1 papers, than I'd realized.
                              Some of it quite interesting...

                              [I][IT] The woman murdered in Berner street has been identified. There appears to be very little doubt as to this as the belief was current in all parts of the neighbourhood, and a woman who is known as "One Armed Liz," living in a common lodginghouse in Flower and Dean street, stated to a reporter that she had accompanied Sergeant Thicke to St George's mortuary, and had identified the body as that of Annie Stride, an unfortunate, living in a common lodginghouse in the neighbourhood of Flower and Dean street. "One Armed Liz" refused to give further information, as she said she had been instructed to keep the matter to herself. Another rumour was to the effect that the deceased was a Swede and had evidently lived in this country for some years, judging by the fluency with which she spoke the English language. Another telegram states that the woman murdered in Berner street has been identified as Elizabeth Stride, who, it seems, had been leading a gay life, and had resided latterly in Flower and Dean street. She was identified by a sister living in Holborn. Her husband, who resides at Bath, has lived apart from her for nearly five years. Up to 10 o'clock to-night Stride's murderer has not been disclosed.
                              "One armed Liz" was most likely the same person named Elizabeth Burns who was attacked by Charles Ludwig a week and a half before the double event. She may have been instructed to "keep the matter to herself" because Abberline and Thick were looking into the backround of Ludwig at the time.


                              Daily Telegraph,
                              Sept 19, 1888


                              The woman who complained that the prisoner had threatened her has not been found, but there should be little difficulty in discovering her whereabouts, as she has only one arm.

                              Echo
                              2 October 1888

                              A German, giving his name as Charles Ludwig, was charged at the Thames Police-court, to-day, with threatening to stab Elizabeth Burns, of 55, Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields, and also with threatening to stab Alexander Finlay, of 51, Leman-street, Whitechapel.

                              Daily Telegraph
                              Sept 19, 1888

                              Inspectors Abberline and Helson and Detective-Sergeant Thicke were engaged yesterday afternoon in making inquiries into the prisoner's antecedents and the probabilities of his connection with the East-end tragedies, but they decline to state whether they have formed any theories as to his guilt.
                              Last edited by jerryd; 04-25-2020, 06:32 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                                "One armed Liz" was most likely the same person named Elizabeth Burns who was attacked by Charles Ludwig a week and a half before the double event. She may have been instructed to "keep the matter to herself" because Abberline and Thick were looking into the backround of Ludwig at the time.


                                Daily Telegraph,
                                Sept 19, 1888


                                The woman who complained that the prisoner had threatened her has not been found, but there should be little difficulty in discovering her whereabouts, as she has only one arm.

                                Echo
                                2 October 1888

                                A German, giving his name as Charles Ludwig, was charged at the Thames Police-court, to-day, with threatening to stab Elizabeth Burns, of 55, Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields, and also with threatening to stab Alexander Finlay, of 51, Leman-street, Whitechapel.

                                Daily Telegraph
                                Sept 19, 1888

                                Inspectors Abberline and Helson and Detective-Sergeant Thicke were engaged yesterday afternoon in making inquiries into the prisoner's antecedents and the probabilities of his connection with the East-end tragedies, but they decline to state whether they have formed any theories as to his guilt.
                                Thank you Jerry, I was not aware of that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X