Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael.

William Wess left the club by the front door about 12:15, along with his brother & another man, Lewis _______, (can't recall his second name), so "we" might only have his word for it, but the police didn't, they will have interviewed Wess and confirmed what he said at the inquest.
He simply wasn't involved, that's the 'uncomfortable' truth.

On returning from the printing office, Wess said...
"I went into the club and called my brother, and we went home together-going into the street together with Lewis Selzi, who lives close to us."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881002.html

So, contrary to all the speculation, William Wess was never stood in Berner St. alone, carrying a newspaper parcel of any description, at any time that night.

Wess "said". Did they confirm what Wess said Jon, I must have missed that. But Louis aloes "said" he arrived "precisely" at 1am, something directly refuted by 4 corroborated witness accounts and by Fanny Mortimer, who was at her door at 1.

When using what a witness "said", without any corroborative accounts...like the Lewis you cant recall...it is just hearsay, not evidence.

You assert that Wess couldnt have been parcel man based on what Wess said? Or what you presume the police thought? C'mon Jon, that's just an argument that is beneath you. That sighting could easily match, in general, Woolf Wess, and since we don't have anyone else claiming that spot....(of course Wess being that man then not reporting it takes care of that problem)...he is still a possible. And will be unless anyone else has evidence that A) somneone other than Wess claimed or was interviewed for that man, or B) It can be proven Wess did exactly what he said, at "precisely" when he said he did. We can see how "precisely" works out for Louis...but whatever floats your boat.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive also speculated about how devastating it would be for those associated directly with the club by vocation, if the story that the police believed created the impression that the killer either came from the club, or was attending it.

Hello Michael,

You don't seem to have taken into account that it would be even more devastating for those club members to be sitting in a jail cell having been found guilty of deliberately misleading the police in a murder investigation. Simply engaging in a cover up did not ensure that the club members were removed from suspicion. It was taking a big chance especially since the police didn't like them and were suspicious of them to begin with. It seems like a lot of risk for little reward especially when simply cooperating with the police would seem to be a more viable option.

c.d.

So does attacking the police with clubs in Dutfields Yard. I suggesting self preservation as a motive cd. Clearly people will forgo collateral risks when the believe they are saving their bacon.

[c.d.]

Ive also speculated about how devastating it would be for those associated directly with the club by vocation, if the story that the police believed created the impression that the killer either came from the club, or was attending it.

Hello Michael,

You don't seem to have taken into account that it would be even more devastating for those club members to be sitting in a jail cell having been found guilty of deliberately misleading the police in a murder investigation. Simply engaging in a cover up did not ensure that the club members were removed from suspicion. It was taking a big chance especially since the police didn't like them and were suspicious of them to begin with. It seems like a lot of risk for little reward especially when simply cooperating with the police would seem to be a more viable option.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not even if said witness is immediately asked:
"Are you certain?"

and answers: "I feel certain"

No it has to a positive ID the witness is specifically asked that question

in today’s legal system identification is a contentious issue as is the evidence used to support an identification especially if a case revolves around identification as its only source

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Just for clarification in modern-day police identification procedures if a witness states "I think it is him" it is not classed as a positive identification!

Not even if said witness is immediately asked:
"Are you certain?"

and answers: "I feel certain"

[Wickerman]

Michael.

William Wess left the club by the front door about 12:15, along with his brother & another man, Lewis _______, (can't recall his second name), so "we" might only have his word for it, but the police didn't, they will have interviewed Wess and confirmed what he said at the inquest.
He simply wasn't involved, that's the 'uncomfortable' truth.

On returning from the printing office, Wess said...
"I went into the club and called my brother, and we went home together-going into the street together with Lewis Selzi, who lives close to us."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881002.html

So, contrary to all the speculation, William Wess was never stood in Berner St. alone, carrying a newspaper parcel of any description, at any time that night.

[Michael W Richards]

How does a man, alone, carrying literature down the yard, equate with another man outside the yard on the other side of Berner st. in the company of a woman?

Hey Jon,... Well it places Wess, within a half hour of Strides murder, in the yard carrying literature. The only other question is what time this was, and did anything else happen to Wess during that time, and sadly, as in all the cases of men associated with the club by vocation as well as allegiance, there is no one else to help verify either his time or what he did. We have only his word for the time and what he did. Even Lave, who was at the gates around 12:30 didn't see him.

Since we have a man seen with Stride just outside that location within that same half hour, a man who by general description could be Wess and carry a parcel that matches in general terms the size of the paper Wess prints, Ive speculated it may have been him. The fact that he didn't mention anything about that, assuming of course that the hypothetical is correct, would mean that he withheld evidence, and therefore, he lied. Ive also speculated about how devastating it would be for those associated directly with the club by vocation, if the story that the police believed created the impression that the killer either came from the club, or was attending it. Seeing nothing....as Lave and Eagle stated, or saying one arrived at 1 and very close to the time the police arrived instead of 15 minutes earlier, or coming forward with a story that no-one can validate nor completely discount about an offsite beginning to this murder, are all things that could have been done to preserve the club. And some peoples incomes.

I think once one can see the forest rather than the trees here, which for me is that the club staffers lied about some details in order to shape an impression for the investigators to protect livelihoods, then this question about how they came to the conclusion that they identified this woman correctly in the Inquest becomes multi-leveled. Was this an intentional misrepresentation, a mistake, a misidentification, or an accurate one. We have conflicts in what we should expect to see if the dead womans features, and history, from people who knew both woman well. Mary Malcom was convinced that it was her sister, and Ms Watts came in to dispel that possibility...without addressing the crippled foot feature that was one of the things that Mary used to identify her....and without the presence of Mary Malcolm.

It would seem that its possible in the case of Mary Malcolms sister that the "dreadful character" that Ms Watts said Mary portrayed her as having might have as a result people who would wish her harm. Not a motive in sync with an impulsive, mad, killer and mutilator of strangers...someone who the police supported as being the killer at large.

[Wickerman]

.....he does however establish that he goes into the yard with "literature", which then makes his a respectable appearing man of about 28 carrying a parcel near the gates of the club within about 15 minutes of the time PC Smith sees Stride with a man and a parcel.

How does a man, alone, carrying literature down the yard, equate with another man outside the yard on the other side of Berner st. in the company of a woman?

[Trevor Marriott]

Ive never said anything that someone could take as the part in bold above, in fact Ive repeatedly said that the men with the most to lose if the police thought the club was involved are incorrect or they lied...and have zero corroboration for their stories,... and there are multiple, corroborated, contradictory accounts. That's a small number of conspiracists, the opposite of what you claimed.

I hate it when people misrepresent...if you don't understand that's fine, but to intentionally misrepresent...that's another thing...

The description of the parcel has been suggested to match roughly what is believed the size of the Arbeter Fraint was, I showed you a picture where Wess's facial hair is barely visible during daylight, evidence given at the Inquest doesn't have anything to do with its veracity or truthfulness. and I quoted you from Inquest transcripts while you counter with Press interviews.

Lets just return to the topic perhaps, unless you have something other than incorrect tangential posts to make.

Just for clarification in modern-day police identification procedures if a witness states "I think it is him" it is not classed as a positive identification!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

You don't seem to grasp the concept that not recognising a stranger is different from being able to recognise someone who was high profile in the street. That goes not just for Smith, but everybody else in the street who read the description and all the people who ever attended the club, from members and visitors to people like William Morris et al. You seem to be talking of a conspiracy involving hundreds of people. You also seen to be claiming you know more than all those people.

As for evidence, Wess gave evidence that he carried "literature" not a stack of newspapers from the club to the office. Yes, that could be a lie, but it was reported at the time and therefore it IS evidence.

That the man, seen by Smith, was carrying copies of The Workers Friend, is modern conjecture NOT evidence.

That Smith saw enough of the man's face to guess his age and observe he had no facial hair IS evidence.

To say that man was Wess is modern conjecture NOT evidence.

That Wess gave evidence that he left with two men IS evidence as given at the inquest. That he was lying is conjecture.

That Smith is reported as saying, "I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman", is evidence. The Morning Advertiser's version of Smith's evidence suggests that it was Mrs Strides clothes that he recognised and from that convinced himself that it was the same woman, "The woman was like the deceased - in fact, I am sure the woman is the deceased."

Ive never said anything that someone could take as the part in bold above, in fact Ive repeatedly said that the men with the most to lose if the police thought the club was involved are incorrect or they lied...and have zero corroboration for their stories,... and there are multiple, corroborated, contradictory accounts. That's a small number of conspiracists, the opposite of what you claimed.

I hate it when people misrepresent...if you don't understand that's fine, but to intentionally misrepresent...that's another thing...

The description of the parcel has been suggested to match roughly what is believed the size of the Arbeter Fraint was, I showed you a picture where Wess's facial hair is barely visible during daylight, evidence given at the Inquest doesn't have anything to do with its veracity or truthfulness. and I quoted you from Inquest transcripts while you counter with Press interviews.

Lets just return to the topic perhaps, unless you have something other than incorrect tangential posts to make.

[drstrange169]

You don't seem to grasp the concept that not recognising a stranger is different from being able to recognise someone who was high profile in the street. That goes not just for Smith, but everybody else in the street who read the description and all the people who ever attended the club, from members and visitors to people like William Morris et al. You seem to be talking of a conspiracy involving hundreds of people. You also seen to be claiming you know more than all those people.

As for evidence, Wess gave evidence that he carried "literature" not a stack of newspapers from the club to the office. Yes, that could be a lie, but it was reported at the time and therefore it IS evidence.

That the man, seen by Smith, was carrying copies of The Workers Friend, is modern conjecture NOT evidence.

That Smith saw enough of the man's face to guess his age and observe he had no facial hair IS evidence.

To say that man was Wess is modern conjecture NOT evidence.

That Wess gave evidence that he left with two men IS evidence as given at the inquest. That he was lying is conjecture.

That Smith is reported as saying, "I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman", is evidence. The Morning Advertiser's version of Smith's evidence suggests that it was Mrs Strides clothes that he recognised and from that convinced himself that it was the same woman, "The woman was like the deceased - in fact, I am sure the woman is the deceased."

[Michael W Richards]

>>Some people missed those obvious details, or prefer to ignore them.<<

Not to mention ... "I go home from Berner-street generally between 12 and 1", in other words, Wess went home most nights when Smith would be around on his beat. A recognised regular in the 'hood.

It appears that you and some others prefer to imagine events and activities rather than search for any evidence to support them. Smith clearly states he could easily recognize the woman and that he didn't take much notice of the man. Therefore, an idea you seem to object far too strenuously to, making this some kind of smear rather than any search for truth,... that Wess may have been the man seen with Stride is still potentially viable. What Wess says about when is immaterial, its unsubstantiated and uncorroborated just like Louis, Lave, Eagle and Diemshutz......he does however establish that he goes into the yard with "literature", which then makes his a respectable appearing man of about 28 carrying a parcel near the gates of the club within about 15 minutes of the time PC Smith sees Stride with a man and a parcel.

But whats 15 minutes, right? Louis says he arrived at precisely 1, when 4 men say they saw him 15 minutes earlier by the dying woman and 1 witness to the street didn't see anyone arrive at 1.

This has always been about finding out if all the variances in these times is accidental, or intentionally incorrect. With Louis being vehement about 1am arrival and being directly contradicted by 5 witnesses, with Eagle and Lave saying they were in the same place at the same time and neither saw each other or anyone else, even though 4 witnesses say they were in that passageway at about that same time, and Israel coming forward with a sensational story that has the victim seen with an assailant near the murder scene and about the time it happens, a story which was deemed to have no value in the question of how Stride died...….you have your answers right there.

Intentional.

[drstrange169]

>> In the same sentence Smith acknowledges "I did not notice him much". That was not the case with Stride, he "recognized her at once."<<

That's not quite right is it? What Smith is actually quoted as saying is,

"I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman. Are you certain? - I feel certain."
So, in fact, he had a hesitancy about Mrs Stride, but was able to I.D. her all the same, once he saw her again. There is no reason to think he couldn't do the same with a the man if he met him again.

How old is this man?



Without seeing his face, how could someone say whether he is about 28 years old or not?

[drstrange169]

>>Some people missed those obvious details, or prefer to ignore them.<<

Not to mention ... "I go home from Berner-street generally between 12 and 1", in other words, Wess went home most nights when Smith would be around on his beat. A recognised regular in the 'hood.

[drstrange169]

>> ... its not out of the question<<

So basically you're saying Smith's description is enough like Wess for you to see the similarity nearly 150 years later, but Smith, who actually saw the man, would have no idea?