Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.



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?



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?



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.

Regarding the knife, you seek to put great importance to.

I would suggest anyone wanting to carry a knife of that size would have it fixed between a belt and trousers. on his hip, and hidden by a coat not carrying it in a paper parcel.

Dr Phillips
"I am of the opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right and therefore arises the unlikelihood of such a long knife having inflicted the wound described"

I would forget your 10 inches of cold steel

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

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

I think that Kidney knew something for sure, his insistence that he could get the fellow if he had some constables at his disposal to place here and there seems to me more than just anti-Semitic raving. But for the record I do believe an Immigrant Jew likely killed Liz whomever.

[Michael W Richards]

The discussion of the parcel....I think its very likely that Liz whomever was talking with Wess and with some Arbeter Fraints under his arm. Which would mean that Wess lied. He didn't mention that meeting at all, if it happened. It appears that Louis lied when he said he arrived "precisely" at 1. And if 4 independent corroborated witnesses testimonies mean anything...and I think they do.....then Eagle lied. Maybe he though his hedging of bets...I couldn't be sure there wasnt a body there...gave him an out in case the real event timeline became the accepted one. Hmm. 3 of the people most directly linked to the club for their livelihood lying. So very hard to believe......

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Regarding the knife, you seek to put great importance to.

I would suggest anyone wanting to carry a knife of that size would have it fixed between a belt and trousers. on his hip, and hidden by a coat not carrying it in a paper parcel.

Dr Phillips
"I am of the opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right and therefore arises the unlikelihood of such a long knife having inflicted the wound described"

I would forget your 10 inches of cold steel

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So what do you suppose the parcel is all about? Is MWR on the right track in #93?

As for Phillips doubting the knife is the murder weapon, here's same quote again (Times, Oct 6) with more context:

[Baxter] Could you give us any idea of the position of the victim?
[Phillips] I have come to the conclusion that the deceased was seized by the shoulders, placed on the ground, and that the perpetrator of the deed was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of the opinion that the cut was made from the left to right side of the deceased, and therefore arises the unlikelihood of such a long knife having inflicted the wound described in the neck, taking into account the position of the incision.

The problem is that with the victim on the ground, the left to right incision would be very difficult to achieve.
This has a lot to do with the proximity of the victim to the wall, as Phillips explains immediately prior to the above quote:

Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck of the deceased; but it was not such a weapon as I would have chosen to inflict injuries in this particular place; 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.

So there is nothing wrong with the knife itself. However, if Phillips opinion as to the victim's position when cut 'in this particular place' is correct, the knife found (or one like it) would be unlikely to be the murder weapon.
And if his opinion is incorrect, the knife well have done the job.

So the position and location of the victim when cut is important to determining the size of knife used, as is the direction of the cut.
Regarding the later, there is something fascinating in the quote you give...

I am of the opinion that the cut was made from the left to right side of the deceased...

Phillips is not even sure of the direction of the cut.
Just let that sink in for a few seconds...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Regarding the importance of ascertaining the length of the knife used, the reason this is a critical is simple; a long knife suggests the cut position and the discovery position, are not one and the same.
This leads to the possibility that more than one person was involved in the Dutfield's Yard murder, because it opens up the possibility that the victim was relocated.

Ed Spooner: I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard. I could not form any opinion about the body having been moved.

But he sure was thinking about it.

Have you ever considered how convenient the body location in the passageway was to Louis Diemschitz story about pulling up alongside the victim, prodding her with whip handle, and jumping down next to her to light a match?
So thoughtful of the Ripper to leave her lying along and near to the wall, so that the steward didn't run over her when he returned.

Everything is so contrived. Three club members speak of going up or down, or up & down the passageway, in the half hour prior to 12:45 - the Schwartz incident.
Lo and behold, they see no one.

[IT1001] Several members of the club, including the steward, stated that the yard adjoining the building had never been frequented by unfortunate women. The traffic there is constant, and continues almost all the night through.

Except between 12:40 & 1 am, Sep 30, 1888. Funny that.

Morning Advertiser, Oct 2:

Mrs. Diemschitz: It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground.

Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

Contrived.

Julius Minsky, a Polish Jew, and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. They had finished the evening's discussion, and were amusing themselves with singing. The utmost joviality was prevailing when a member rushed excitedly into the room, and shouted out that the body of a murdered woman had been found in the yard. The singing was at once stopped, and all present rushed downstairs in a state of the utmost alarm into the yard.

So why didn't the people in the cottages also rush out?
Why did they appear frightened, and have to be persuaded to come out, whereas the club members apparently all hurtled downstairs and out into the yard (being careful to negotiate the pony and cart, when they got there), as soon as they were told what had been found there?

So supposing Stride were not cut where found, where exactly did the murder take place?

I think witnesses and suspects give away clues, when they volunteer more information than necessary to explain something or answer a question.

Here is Sarah Diemschitz again:

Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall.

This reads just fine - and we know the Berner street end of the passageway was very dark - but actually I left out a sentence...

Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall.

That's interesting. At 1am, the gas jets in the kitchen were still lighting up the yard.
Who was she and Mila cooking for at that time?
I reckon Sarah Diemschitz just told us where the murder took place - in the recessed area of the passageway, where the WCs were.
That was the section of the yard lit up by the light of the gas burning in the kitchen.

PC Smith (Times, Oct 3):

After I examined the club, I went into the yard and examined the cottages. I also went into the water-closets. The occupiers of the cottages were all in bed when I knocked. A man came down partly dressed to let me in. Every one I saw, except this one, was undressed.
The CORONER. - There is a recess in the yard, is there not? Did you go there?
Witness. - Yes; and I afterwards went there with Dr. Phillips. I examined the dust-bin and dung-heap. I noticed there was a hoarding, but I do not recollect looking over it. After that I went and examined the steps and outside of Messrs. Hindley's premises. I also looked through the windows, as the doors were fastened.
The CORONER. - How long was it before the cottage doors were opened?
Witness. - Not long. The people seemed very much frightened and wanted to know what was the matter. I told them nothing much, as I did not want to frighten them.

A hoarding of what?

Dr. Phillips (Times, Oct 4):

There was mud on the left side of the face and it was matted in the head.
Examining her jacket, I found that, while there was a small amount of mud on the right side, the left was well plastered with mud.

So the upper half of the body is very muddied, mostly on the left side.
I reckon that hoarding might have been dirt, now mud after the rain.

No one in the cottages seems to have heard anything suspicious, but someone seems to have heard something...

[IT1001] About five minutes to one o'clock this morning a youth about twenty years of age named Joseph Koster was accosted by a little boy who came running up to him as he was passing on the opposite side of 40 Berner street, used by the International Socialist Club, and told him that a woman was lying in the gateway next to the club, with her throat cut. Koster immediately ran across the road and saw a woman lying on her side in the gateway leading into Dutfield's stabling and van premises.

So why might this 'little boy' have heard what no one else did?
Might he have been using the loo, when Stride was killed?

[DJA]

A hoarding is a fence.

Phillips opinion was that Stride's throat was cut from left to right.

Couldn't be bothered with the rest of the rubbish on this thread.

[Michael W Richards]

Pointing out the inconsistencies and incongruities and irreconcilable differences in the statements made concerning Strides murder is never a waste of time. Hands over ears, eyes and mouth however most assuredly is. I recall reading the background of Elizabeth Stride nee Gustavsdotter from Goteborg years ago on this forum, I cant for the life of me remember the researcher, I think he may have published the story in Ripper Notes.... and was satisfied that this was the same woman found dying in a passageway off Berner. I think now that I may have been too lenient on some points to allow for that belief.

There are some curious things about this murder, and I agree with Trevor whole heartedly that this wasn't a Ripper murder at all. People get killed far more frequently for motives that are easily understandable, and in some cases, relatable. Including momentary flashes of violent anger. Maybe just 2 seconds worth, by Bagster Phillips reckoning. So really this murder has value as an exercise in investigation of LVP violent crimes...the most important things we can learn are who was the woman and why was she there. The actual killer, unless its Kidney, isn't much of a concern going forward, there are no further mundane murders in the Canonical Group. This murder has only the historical geography and timing to link it with other far more sinister acts, the killer here is unimportant, perhaps only to descendants of the deceased.

But the implications of what can be learned about this case on analysis of prior and subsequent murders..about witness testimony, police behaviours and reasoning can be really useful when looking at, for example, Kates murder.

[drstrange169]

>> I think its very likely that Liz whomever was talking with Wess and with some Arbeter Fraints under his arm.<<

So, Wess, a high profile, daily Berner Street frequenter and attendee at the inquest, was never recognised by P.C. Smith, the policeman whose beat took him past the club every half hour? Can you see why people would find that scenario very hard to accept? Did Wess go into immediate hiding once he knew Smith saw him? No.

[drstrange169]

>>So there is nothing wrong with the knife itself<<

Except that it didn't appear until 24 hours after the murder. Why would the killer suddenly decided to put the knife on a doorstep to a shop a day layer at 11.30 in the evening?

[drstrange169]

Re: Kidney identifying Mrs Stride by the "roof of her mouth", he didn't.

[Kattrup]

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.

Sure, some faint clues are useful. But that does not mean that any theory put forward becomes established and accepted fact.

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?

I said it was a possibility. We don't know that she was, so we cannot suppose that she was. It's just a possibility. You're assuming as fact (she scammed!) something that is only conjecture (how to account for her testimony? She may have been confused, mistaken, scamming - or scammed herself by Stride, part of a conspiracy, mentally ill etc.)

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?

In order for it to be a lie, it must be shown that MM knew and realised that it was not her sister. There's no source establishing this. Again, she may have been innocently mistaken, she may have been insane. We do not know so we cannot assume she was lying.

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.

It was the way they handled it. It was an inquest, not a trial. Just compare it to the other inquests.

[Michael W Richards]

>> I think its very likely that Liz whomever was talking with Wess and with some Arbeter Fraints under his arm.<<

So, Wess, a high profile, daily Berner Street frequenter and attendee at the inquest, was never recognised by P.C. Smith, the policeman whose beat took him past the club every half hour? Can you see why people would find that scenario very hard to accept? Did Wess go into immediate hiding once he knew Smith saw him? No.

If youll note Smith feels sure he recognized Elizabeth Stride at 12:35, down to the flower arrangement, and he gives a broader stroke overview of the man with her. One which fits with Wess pretty well age wise. At no time however did he state that he got a good look at the man with Stride. He just gave a summary of his impressions. Wess wears some different clothing and voila, Smith wouldn't likely have picked him out of a lineup. Part of what Smith recounts is the respectable appearance of the man...no facial details,.. moustache, beard, etc...just the age, the hat and the respectable appearance.

What people seem to pass over is that Liz Stride is seen in the immediate area of the club at 12:35 by a reputable source. She is found in the passageway at either 12:40-45 or just after 1am, depending on whom you choose to believe. So, she remains in that immediate area after 12:35. How come no-one sees her? Lave is at the gates from 12:30 until 12:40, he doesn't see her. He doesn't even see Eagle arrive at the gates at 12:40. Fanny doesn't see Liz in the street on her sporadic visits to the door between 12:30 and 12:50, and she says she was there "nearly the whole time". 4 people state that they were alerted to the body about 12:40-12:45 and that they stood there with others around it. One of the "others" was Louis.

Why I am pointing this out yet again is that its clear that the majority of the sources indicate a finding of the body some 15-20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived, that using PC Smith we can place Liz in the street just across from the gates at 12:35, and that Eagle and Lave were either temporarily blind or that they saw Liz and didn't report it. Eagle "couldn't be sure" a body was or wasn't there when he arrives, perhaps revealing a lack of commitment to what was actually a story he was giving, not a recollection of events.

I don't think the fact Smith saw someone with Liz is inconsistent with an idea it was possibly Wess she was with, he even acknowledged he was carry literature just before then,... and we can see pretty obviously that some, or all, of the most involved members of the Club grounds...the printer of the Socialist paper onsite, the club steward, the club speaker, someone who lives in one of the passageway cottages, ALL make statements that are either provably incorrect by virtue of multiple accounts to the contrary, or impossible to believe...like Lave and Eagle being at the gates at the same time and not seeing each other.

Once again, the murder itself here isn't mysterious, a single throat cut done in 2 seconds. Why these people would all be incorrect, intentionally or accidentally, is mysterious. Its like they sought to present a story that deflected suspicions from a club attendee...who in this case, was almost certainly the killer. No other people were seen about that last 25 minutes after Smith left. Just the young couple. Lave, Eagle, Fanny...no-one saw anyone. So Stride is in the passageway shortly after Smith leaves, making the man Smith saw as the last man seen with her. To connect that man to the club is logical, she talks with him then enters the passage.

I wouldn't be surprised if they discussed moving her off the grounds during that 15 minutes Louis thinks about what to do. The flow of blood was surely an obstacle. He leaves when he says he did, after 1, but for that first 15-20 minutes, he waits. What could be more logical than planning some spin?

[Scott Nelson]

>>So there is nothing wrong with the knife itself<<

Except that it didn't appear until 24 hours after the murder. Why would the killer suddenly decided to put the knife on a doorstep to a shop a day layer at 11.30 in the evening?

If the knife found by Coram was used to kill Stride, could the same killer or killers have used it to kill Eddowes in Mitre Square?

How did the knife end up on the doorstep of Norah Christmas' laundry premise?

[c.d.]

Its like they sought to present a story that deflected suspicions from a club attendee...who in this case, was almost certainly the killer.

That is some serious loyalty to a member of the club. Did these men not have wives, mothers, daughters? A woman is brutally murdered and all they thought about was covering the club's collective behind?

c.d.

[c.d.]

And as far as people linked to the club for their livelihood possibly lying, keep in mind that this was a shabby little club in Whitechapel. It's not like they were big shots in a Wall Street Investment Firm pulling down a few million a year. A little perspective is needed here before jumping to conclusions.

c.d.