Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    Thank you Jerry, I was not aware of that.
    Sure Kattrup.

    It was discussed a few years back. Not sure if anyone took the matter very far. To me, the evidence clearly shows One armed Liz and Elizabeth Burns are one and the same.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      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?
      Kidney explains his purpose

      Daily Telegraph, oct. 4
      The Coroner: Had you any information that required the service of a detective? - Yes. I thought that if I had one, privately, he could get more information than I could myself. The parties I obtained my information from knew me, and I thought someone else would be able to derive more from them.
      So unless Kidney was known at the Berner Street Club, it had nothing to do with his strapping young detective.

      Kidney was drunk at the time, so most likely his idea revolved around arresting some local suspect similar to Leather Apron.


      As for other questions asked in preceding posts, I'm not sure how many have been answered - I don't know enough about the practicalities of an inquest to say if witnesses were announced publicly, whether Kidney would know in advance which days he had to attend, how a witness might learn of the testimony of another etc. to answer all of them.

      My main contention is that we do not know enough about Mary Malcolm to understand precisely why she said what she did or how she knew what she did. Personally, I believe she was mentally unwell (recall that her sister was also mentally ill): having had a dream about her sister and then hearing of a murdered woman, she became convinced that it must have been her sister and made her statements accordingly. Perhaps she started out by asking around Flower and Dean Street and there learned a few of the details. As we know, there were crowds of people gathered there discussing the case.
      But we don't have enough information to understand the full details. However, we do know that she was wrong in her id, since her sister was actually alive.

      Comment


      • #78
        Hi Barnflatwyngarde,

        "This description of the injuries, suggests the murder was not just a 'domestic'."

        It does?

        How so?

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by jerryd View Post

          Sure Kattrup.

          It was discussed a few years back. Not sure if anyone took the matter very far. To me, the evidence clearly shows One armed Liz and Elizabeth Burns are one and the same.
          Absolutely, I agree.
          Interesting that her assailant Ludwig had a strange walk, there are quite a few witness statement (about the JtR murders in general) that mention a man with unusual gait. But apparently he was locked up at the time.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            [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'.
            She had her throat cut with a much smaller knife that used on the other victims, that was her only injury, suggesting perhaps her murder could have been domestically motivated.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

              Absolutely, I agree.
              Interesting that her assailant Ludwig had a strange walk, there are quite a few witness statement (about the JtR murders in general) that mention a man with unusual gait. But apparently he was locked up at the time.
              Was it a front or back gait?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                Kidney explains his purpose

                Daily Telegraph, oct. 4
                The Coroner: Had you any information that required the service of a detective? - Yes. I thought that if I had one, privately, he could get more information than I could myself. The parties I obtained my information from knew me, and I thought someone else would be able to derive more from them.
                So unless Kidney was known at the Berner Street Club, it had nothing to do with his strapping young detective.
                Strapping?

                The parties I obtained my information from knew me - may simply be Kidney's excuse for not going undercover himself.
                Can you blame him for not wanting to spend significant time of his own, in that environment, and thus becoming known to members in the process?

                Alternatively, Kidney need not be known (already) to club members in general, but perhaps just one or two of them, or the connection may be indirect.

                Ultimately, an attempt has to be made to explain why Kidney wants a detective at his disposal, who should be both 'strange', and young.

                Kidney was drunk at the time, so most likely his idea revolved around arresting some local suspect similar to Leather Apron.
                He did not walk back the request when at the inquest - in fact he defended it and gave a huge hint that both secrecy and anonymity were necessary.

                Perhaps it would have been wise to take Kidney's request a bit more seriously...

                [MK] I believe I could catch the man if I had a detective under my command.
                [WB] You cannot expect that. I have had over a hundred letters making suggestions, and I dare say all the writers would like to have a detective at their service. (Laughter.)


                Kidney was not just one of the nobody's writing letters of advice.
                Was this an opportunity missed? Put it this way; would you like to know what Kidney held back at the inquest?

                As for other questions asked in preceding posts, I'm not sure how many have been answered - I don't know enough about the practicalities of an inquest to say if witnesses were announced publicly, whether Kidney would know in advance which days he had to attend, how a witness might learn of the testimony of another etc. to answer all of them.
                On the face of it, the contrast between Kidney's presence and Schwartz' absence, is stark.

                My main contention is that we do not know enough about Mary Malcolm to understand precisely why she said what she did or how she knew what she did. Personally, I believe she was mentally unwell (recall that her sister was also mentally ill): having had a dream about her sister and then hearing of a murdered woman, she became convinced that it must have been her sister and made her statements accordingly. Perhaps she started out by asking around Flower and Dean Street and there learned a few of the details. As we know, there were crowds of people gathered there discussing the case.
                But we don't have enough information to understand the full details. However, we do know that she was wrong in her id, since her sister was actually alive.
                According to Kidney, Mary Malcolm looked like Stride.
                Regardless of Malcolm's mental state, someone knew this and attempted to exploit it.
                And the 1:20 am presentiment was a fabrication, so either Malcolm (dubiously) learnt of the murders by reading the Sunday papers, and for no reason suspected her sister was one of the victims, or someone gave her the tip.
                Given the lookalike factor, I'd say the later, and furthermore the intention to exploit Malcolm's appearance could well pre-date Stride's death.
                The only reason I can think that Malcolm came up with her dead sister idea, after the murder, is that she went to the mortuary out of curiosity, and decided after leaving that she looked rather like the dead person, and then worked out that she could make something of it.
                But then how does she know the personal details (mark on leg, policeman relationship, maybe the foot issue)?
                By the way, this is where Baxter possibly gives her too much help:

                [WB] Did you ever hear her called "Long Liz"?
                [MM] That was generally her nickname, I believe.


                He should have just asked - What was her nickname? - to prevent her the opportunity of giving one of her 'I believe' answers.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  She had her throat cut with a much smaller knife that used on the other victims, that was her only injury, suggesting perhaps her murder could have been domestically motivated.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Regarding the knife found on Whitechapel Road...

                  [Baxter] The blade of the knife is dagger-shaped and is sharpened on one side. The blade is about 9in. or 10in. long, I should say.

                  Did someone accidently give away too much information?...

                  [Probably Fanny Mortimer] I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.'

                  So how could such a long knife - 10 inches of blade and 6 inches of handle - be carried to the murder site?
                  What sort of coat or jacket would have a pocket deep enough for a knife of that length?
                  Maybe it wasn't carried directly on the person at all.

                  [Coroner] Did you look at the man at all?
                  [PC Smith] Yes.
                  [Coroner] What did you notice about him?
                  [PC Smith] He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.


                  That's a width to height ratio of 3:1 to 2.25:1.

                  So what sort of bags are a similar ratio?

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	s-l1000.jpg Views:	0 Size:	69.4 KB ID:	734824
                  Chefs knife roll bag

                  So what was in the parcel?...

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	x-ray-of-a-bag-containing-a-knife-B3BYHW.jpg Views:	0 Size:	151.3 KB ID:	734825

                  The newspaper wrapping makes the parcel look innocuous.
                  Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 04-26-2020, 03:04 AM.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Regarding the knife found on Whitechapel Road...

                    [Baxter] The blade of the knife is dagger-shaped and is sharpened on one side. The blade is about 9in. or 10in. long, I should say.

                    Did someone accidently give away too much information?...

                    [Probably Fanny Mortimer] I was just about going to bed, sir, when I heard a call for the police. I ran to the door, and before I could open it I heard somebody say, 'Come out quick; there's a poor woman here that's had ten inches of cold steel in her.'

                    So how could such a long knife - 10 inches of blade and 6 inches of handle - be carried to the murder site?
                    What sort of coat or jacket would have a pocket deep enough for a knife of that length?
                    Maybe it wasn't carried directly on the person at all.

                    [Coroner] Did you look at the man at all?
                    [PC Smith] Yes.
                    [Coroner] What did you notice about him?
                    [PC Smith] He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.


                    That's a width to height ratio of 3:1 to 2.25:1.

                    So what sort of bags are a similar ratio?

                    Click image for larger version Name:	s-l1000.jpg Views:	0 Size:	69.4 KB ID:	734824
                    Chefs knife roll bag

                    So what was in the parcel?...

                    Click image for larger version Name:	x-ray-of-a-bag-containing-a-knife-B3BYHW.jpg Views:	0 Size:	151.3 KB ID:	734825

                    The newspaper wrapping makes the parcel look innocuous.
                    There is no evidence to show the knife found was the knife used to kill Stride

                    and no evidence to show that the man carrying the parcel was the killer. If you are going to carry a long blade knife you are not going to carry it wrapped up in a parcel.

                    The parcel could have contained anything


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-26-2020, 07:32 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      The parties I obtained my information from knew me - may simply be Kidney's excuse for not going undercover himself.
                      Can you blame him for not wanting to spend significant time of his own, in that environment, and thus becoming known to members in the process?

                      Alternatively, Kidney need not be known (already) to club members in general, but perhaps just one or two of them, or the connection may be indirect.

                      Ultimately, an attempt has to be made to explain why Kidney wants a detective at his disposal, who should be both 'strange', and young.



                      He did not walk back the request when at the inquest - in fact he defended it and gave a huge hint that both secrecy and anonymity were necessary.

                      Perhaps it would have been wise to take Kidney's request a bit more seriously...

                      [MK] I believe I could catch the man if I had a detective under my command.
                      [WB] You cannot expect that. I have had over a hundred letters making suggestions, and I dare say all the writers would like to have a detective at their service. (Laughter.)


                      Kidney was not just one of the nobody's writing letters of advice.
                      Was this an opportunity missed? Put it this way; would you like to know what Kidney held back at the inquest?
                      Of course one would like to know what he meant, but I don't see anything to suggest that he actually knew anything extraordinary. It seems he was drunk and simply had some notion that he could do better than the police.

                      About the club, there`s nothing implying that his suggestion had anything to do with it. Before conjecturing that it was an excuse for not going undercover and gathering intel himself, first a connection to the club must be established. If it cannot, the club doesn't enter into it.
                      .

                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      According to Kidney, Mary Malcolm looked like Stride.
                      Regardless of Malcolm's mental state, someone knew this and attempted to exploit it.
                      How do you know for sure?
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      And the 1:20 am presentiment was a fabrication
                      how do you know for sure? I mean, nobody's psychic so in that sense it was a fabrication of course. I mean how do you know for sure it was a deliberate lie?
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      By the way, this is where Baxter possibly gives her too much help:

                      [WB] Did you ever hear her called "Long Liz"?
                      [MM] That was generally her nickname, I believe.


                      He should have just asked - What was her nickname? - to prevent her the opportunity of giving one of her 'I believe' answers.
                      The nickname was in the early papers so she could easily have read it there

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                        Of course one would like to know what he meant, but I don't see anything to suggest that he actually knew anything extraordinary. It seems he was drunk and simply had some notion that he could do better than the police.

                        About the club, there`s nothing implying that his suggestion had anything to do with it. Before conjecturing that it was an excuse for not going undercover and gathering intel himself, first a connection to the club must be established. If it cannot, the club doesn't enter into it.
                        .


                        How do you know for sure?
                        how do you know for sure? I mean, nobody's psychic so in that sense it was a fabrication of course. I mean how do you know for sure it was a deliberate lie?

                        The nickname was in the early papers so she could easily have read it there
                        Perhaps kidney was trying to deflect himself away from suspicion of being her killer?

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Perhaps kidney was trying to deflect himself away from suspicion of being her killer?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Following on from the above

                          Kidney part inquest testimony Telegraph
                          [Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday? –
                          [Kidney] I did not see her on Thursday.
                          [Coroner] When did you last see her? –
                          [Kidney] On the Tuesday, and I then left her on friendly terms in Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.
                          [Coroner] Do you know whether she had picked up with anyone?
                          [Kidney] I have seen the address of the brother of the gentleman with whom she lived as a servant, somewhere near Hyde Park, but I cannot find it now.
                          [Coroner] Did she have any reason for going away?
                          [Kidney] It was drink that made her go on previous occasions. She always came back again. I think she liked me better than any other man. I do not believe she left me on Tuesday to take up with any other man.

                          Times Inquest testimony
                          [Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday?
                          [Kidney] No I last saw the deceased alive on Tuesday Week

                          Mary Malcom testimony
                          I last saw her alive last Thursday evening Telegraph Report
                          I last saw her alive at 6.45 last Thursday Times Report

                          Catherine Lane Telegraph
                          [Coroner] Did you speak to her last week? - On Thursday and Saturday.
                          [Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday? - Between ten and eleven o'clock.
                          [Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back? - She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with.

                          Another clear example of conflicting witness testimony given at these inquests which seems to have gone unchallenged

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            She had her throat cut with a much smaller knife that used on the other victims, that was her only injury, suggesting perhaps her murder could have been domestically motivated.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            So you're claiming to know that the Stride knife was much smaller than that used on the other victims, and thus also that the other victims were killed & eviscerated with a large knife.
                            You don't provide evidence for any of this, and yet in #84 your boldly complaining that I haven't given evidence for a large knife in the Stride murder.

                            What the IT reporter says about Stride's neck wound is very revealing, especially given that the description probably comes from someone who is not biased by knowledge of Dr. Phillips theory of how the murder was executed, or even the discovery position of the victim relative to the club wall...

                            ...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...

                            Does that sound like the murderer used a small knife, or 'ten inches of cold steel'?
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              There is no evidence to show the knife found was the knife used to kill Stride

                              and no evidence to show that the man carrying the parcel was the killer. If you are going to carry a long blade knife you are not going to carry it wrapped up in a parcel.

                              The parcel could have contained anything


                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Dr. Phillips on the knife:

                              The knife produced on the last occasion was delivered to me, properly secured, by a constable, and on examination I found it to be such a knife as is used in a chandler's shop, and is called a slicing knife. It has blood upon it, which has characteristics similar to the blood of a human being. It has been recently blunted, and its edge apparently turned by rubbing on a stone such as a kerbstone. It evidently was before a very sharp knife.

                              That is hardly proof but who going to blunt down a perfectly good, sharp and large knife, with blood left on it, and then discard it on the street the night after two murders by knife?
                              Probably someone involved with those murders.
                              I guess Mishter Lusk will wate in vain, if he expects to be sent the bloody knif that took out Eddowes Kidne....because the police have it.

                              Dr. Phillips on the cut:

                              There was a clean cut incision on the neck. It was 6in. in length and commenced 2 in. in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, in. over an undivided muscle, and then, becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean, and deviated a little downwards. The artery and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about 2 in. below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this it was evident that the haemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.

                              A single clean cut, 6" across and going deep into the neck. Large or small knife?

                              By the way, there is a good diagram of the estimated depth and extent of the cut in Ripperologist 96, p55 'Cutthroat'.

                              The man with the parcel is seen just 10 minutes prior to the approximate time of death - 12:45 (thoughtfully provided to the world by Arbeter Fraint).
                              At some point the killer has to turn up and get Stride into the passageway.
                              The critical thing with Parcel Man, other than the fact he is seen with the victim shortly before her death, is that Fanny Mortimer does not see him (or her).
                              Fanny is inside when PC Smith is heard walking by with a 'measured, heavy tramp', and when she returns to her doorstep, Parcel Man and Stride are nowhere to be seen.
                              This is nearly 10 minutes before ToD.
                              Fanny does not see anyone enter or leave Dutfield's Yard, before returning inside and then coming out again, no more than a few minutes later, when she hears the cries for police and general commotion in the yard.
                              Therefore, there is only one possible place P Man & Stride could be in those 10 minutes.

                              A parcel wrapped in newspaper is an excellent place to 'hide' a knife - no would think that that is what the parcel contains, including yourself.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                Of course one would like to know what he meant, but I don't see anything to suggest that he actually knew anything extraordinary. It seems he was drunk and simply had some notion that he could do better than the police.

                                About the club, there`s nothing implying that his suggestion had anything to do with it. Before conjecturing that it was an excuse for not going undercover and gathering intel himself, first a connection to the club must be established. If it cannot, the club doesn't enter into it.
                                We have to rely on faint clues, to some extent.
                                If you want to set the bar that high, all the little clues will go to waste, and consequently you're never going to make any progress.
                                Maybe that is what you want - for the identity of JtR to remain a mystery forever.

                                How do you know for sure?
                                You said yourself that Malcolm was probably scamming, and so would it not make sense to suppose that she is exploiting her resemblance to the deceased?

                                how do you know for sure? I mean, nobody's psychic so in that sense it was a fabrication of course. I mean how do you know for sure it was a deliberate lie?
                                You're becoming an absolutist.
                                As you say, nobody's psychic. Also, the deceased was not Elizabeth Watts/Stokes.
                                What further proof that MM was lying, do you require?

                                The nickname was in the early papers so she could easily have read it there
                                You're right, but then what is the point of Baxter's question?
                                Is he trying to catch Malcolm out?
                                And why does he let her equivocate so many times?
                                'I believe so', 'I could tell you tomorrow' - too much BS for my liking.
                                Baxter unfortunately allows the inquest to cross the line from inquiry, into theatre.

                                Now just imagine how useful it would have been in contrast, to have that many questions asked of Israel Schwartz.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X