Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

You seem to be operating under the assumption that every single individual who found himself in the extremely upsetting position of finding a dead woman on their doorstep late at night should have conducted themselves in the most logical and reasonable manner and have total recall of their actions while being 100% cognizant of the time down to the minute. I think that is extremely unrealistic. Could all of the individuals that you mention have lied? Absolutely. No question about it. But faulty memories, misstatements or contradictory, unsupported statements do NOT NECESSARILY indicate that a witness has lied. I think these witnesses should be cut a little slack before we automatically assign the label of liar to them.

c.d.

[Kattrup]

"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers". Nowhere does he say he met anyone until Eagle.

Ah, the old e silentio-fallacy. Very common ‘round these parts, I’m afraid.

The fact that he does not mention seeing or meeting Spooner does not mean that he did not see or meet Spooner.

To exemplify, he does not mention wearing any clothes. Does that mean he was nude? Perhaps he removed his clothes to hide traces of blood?!? Otherwise he surely would have mentioned it.Wouldn’t he?
Sorry, no, we don’t get to decide what people 130 years ago should have remembered to mention for our convenience.

I’m sure if you go through your elaborate deconstruction of events with the old adage “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” in mind, you’ll find it a lot less cohesive.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm trying to let it sink in, but it keeps floating - I need the lead-weight of evidence! How do you know that he did not encounter Spooner?

Perhaps because the current beliefs you have about the witnesses is just hot air? There is weight in numbers. The numbers say Louis was there in the passageway with other members 15-20 minutes before he claims he even arrived. So just carry the weight of the cumulative corroberated accounts that are not from people with vested interest in the club and youll have no problem moving forward with some other conclusions...1) That Louis must have lied about his 1am arrival. 2) That Louis and others were in the passageway between 12:40 and 12:45..meaning that both Lave and Eagle would have seen them too yet denied it. 3)That when Goldstein passed and looked into the passage there must have been people there...which he did not mention. 4) That Issac Kozebrodski is not the Issac[s] who goes out with Louis after 1, and his trip out and perhaps another 2 people who Spooner sees well before 1 were also not mentioned to the police.

And the piece de resistance...that Israel Schwartz lied to the police about seeing a woman on the street when she was seen at that same time by multiple other men dying in the passageway, none of whom saw or heard Israel, a BSM, or a Pipeman.

These conclusions dont address the Inquest lineup, or the witness order in the presentation, but they dont have to. They are only drawn from witness accounts, Perhaps the police did some fudging with the Inquest of their own here.

Like the thread is intended to address....why is someone allowed to make a claims that the dead woman is someone other than Elizabeth Stride nee Gustavsdotter from Goteborg when the police had supposedly already identified her as such through viewings?

[Michael W Richards]

I'm trying to let it sink in, but it keeps floating - I need the lead-weight of evidence! How do you know that he did not encounter Spooner?

"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers". Nowhere does he say he met anyone until Eagle.

Dr Strange seems inclined to think the Kozebrodski quote was a direct quote from someone who didnt speak english well, but clearly the english above is from someone well versed in the language, ergo, someone helped with translations to the reporter. Issac Kozebrodski says he was alerted to the body around 12:40...concurring with Gillen and Heschberg, and concurring with Spooner. He says Louis was there at that time, again, so do the others. Despite the fact that Louis says he didnt arrive until 20 minutes later, something that Fanny Mortimer while at her door to the street until just after 1am didnt see or hear.

[drstrange169]

>>If you take close note of what Issac K is quoted as saying;<<

Clearly you haven't taken a "close note" of what was reported.

"A young Russian Pole named Isaac M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, who speaks the English language imperfectly, gave the following information ..."

And yet, the following information "quoted", is in perfect English!

Ergo, we know what was written, was not what Kozebrodski said, but rather, the reporter's interpretation of what he thought Kozebrodski was trying to say in his "imperfect English".

Why anyone would base a theory around such a dubious piece of evidence over sworn testimony has always been a mystery to me.

[Kattrup]

3) He doesn't encounter Spooner. Let that sink in a bit.

I'm trying to let it sink in, but it keeps floating - I need the lead-weight of evidence! How do you know that he did not encounter Spooner?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,...

If, as you believe, Isaac Kozebrodski & "Isaacs" were two different men, at the same place, at the same time, with identical roles. How is it possible that not one newspaper managed to mention these two men together in the same article? Unanimously, the press mention one, or the other, but never both.
There's a definite clue there Michael, for those not too blinded by their own theories.

If you go looking to find something sometimes you find it, and I believe they, like you..and many others to be fair, presume that Issac[s] is Issac Kozebrodski
If you look at the Daily News of Oct 1st...as Im sure you have, young Issac Kozebrodski gives us this.."

About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one."

A number of theorists would like to think they are rewriting history, I can't think of many that have succeeded.

Nothing of the sort for me Jon, Im content with trying to get the investigations fixated on the facts, the probabilities, logical and reasonable interpretation of the data, the evidence just as it exists. All the witness statements here cannot co-exist, determining which are truthful is what I want.

If you take close note of what Issac K is quoted as saying;

1) The time was about 20 to 1. Diemshitz called him to the passageway.
2) He approximated the time by his knowledge of the time he returned to the club, and presumably checked the time when he arrived. He said he arrived at 12:30 and about 10 minutes later....
3) He doesn't encounter Spooner. Let that sink in a bit.
4) He meets with Eagle coming back to the club just after 1.
5) Louis strikes the match to show Liz to Issac. Does he also strike a match when he arrives? Don't know.

3 other people agree with the above account. The time. Where they were. Who was there. What they saw.

So? What logical extrapolation can you make here? It would seem that Louis lied about the time he arrived, Eagle lied about what he saw when he came back, Lave lied about what he saw. And Israel lied. It would seem that 2 search parties were not mentioned by Louis or anyone else, one with Issac K alone, and one with 2 men who meet Spooner and are back in the passageway at around 12:40-12:45. Spooner never said he met Diemshitz and a man, he just met 2 men. And someone named Issacs seems to have avoided questioning.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

A number of theorists would like to think they are rewriting history, I can't think of many that have succeeded.

Does Hallie Rubenhold count? She had no doubts about who died in Dutfields Yard.

(Exit stage left, avoiding barrage of projectiles)

[Wickerman]

..... Issac Kozebrodksi was sent out alone when he says he was, Louis leaves with someone named Isaac[s]....

If, as you believe, Isaac Kozebrodski & "Isaacs" were two different men, at the same place, at the same time, with identical roles. How is it possible that not one newspaper managed to mention these two men together in the same article?
Unanimously, the press mention one, or the other, but never both.
There's a definite clue there Michael, for those not too blinded by their own theories.

Which would rewrite what most believe happened there.

A number of theorists would like to think they are rewriting history, I can't think of many that have succeeded.

[Michael W Richards]

You choose to place the words of Mrs Mortimer above the testimony of Dr Blackwell?

You mean the Mrs. Mortimer who did not appear at the inquest? Hmmmm.....

c.d.

In effect cd the only Inquest value that Fanny has in the bigger picture is that she saw Goldstein at 12:55. That validates her statement to the police that she was at her door continuously when she says she was. If you are asking me why the police presented the witnesses they did, and in the order they did that, then I cant answer you. In almost every case you would normally expect either the person who saw her last or the person that found her to speak first. Wess speaks first here. Why...who knows? Why put Mary Malcolm there and go through her story if they already knew that Liz Stride.. as identified by Kidney among others.. was the victim? Why put James Brown as the witness on record for 12:45...its almost a cert that he didn't see Liz Stride. Many questions. Why not have Fanny, Heschberg, Gillen, and Spooner give their statements which would show clearly what Im talking about here,...why omit Schwartz, if he is so valued here?

Lots of oddities.

[Michael W Richards]

Kozebrodski, Schwartz & Mortimer were not questioned at the inquest, so you can remove them from the equation if anything they say contradicts accepted testimony. By the way, I meant "close on 20 years", not 30, my mistake.

At the end of the day it is the medical testimony with regard to time of death that carries most weight, and Blackwell appears to place her death between 12:46-56 am, so testimony from witnesses who carried no watch will be worked in to the more reliable (in the view of the court) professional testimony.

You choose to place the words of Mrs Mortimer above the testimony of Dr Blackwell?

Dr Phillips, who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death, suggested that when he arrived at approx. 1:30.."within and hour she had been alive", allows for a cut time, (the times Blackwell mentioned.. 12:46-:56.. were for the earliest cut time in his estimation), slightly earlier than Blackwells estimate. All it takes is a minute here or there and suddenly there is a cohesive story that involves Louis arriving at around 12:40-12:45, men being around the body by 12:45, and for Louis and Eagle to have left when they said they did. Issac Kozebrodksi was sent out alone when he says he was, Louis leaves with someone named Isaac[s]. Everything is corroborated.

Which would rewrite what most believe happened there. Using the evidence as it presents itself is crucial, Im sure you would agree Jon. The evidence, which in this case are statements submitted by people at the scene, people involved with club administration, and bystanders...suggests that a majority of those interviewed has stories that had definite corroboration in some other accounts given. The times matched... the events matched. The people involved were the same. Using that evidence we can conclude that the body had been discovered by 12:45 and that Louis was among those present at that time.

Which makes Eagle, Lave, Schwartz and Diemshutz all incorrect by, in one case, as much 15-20 minutes. They all said no-one was in the passageway when they were there, yet we can clearly see 4 men believed they were there at that time. There are 4 men that corroborate each others stories and are independent witnesses, having no known connection to each other or the club other than as members or visitors, and there are 4 men with known affiliations directly with the club, who likely knew each other...one lives there, 1 speaks there, 1 runs the club, 1 is just coincidentally there at 12:45pm... and none of them have any corroboration even within their respective stories. Eagle doesn't see Lave. Neither see the men or the body. Louis arrives at "precisely" 1, men see him at 12:45 and Fanny is at her door at 1 and saw nothing, Israel is just outside the gates with the woman who is killed at the same time men are around her dying body inside the passageway.

[c.d.]

You choose to place the words of Mrs Mortimer above the testimony of Dr Blackwell?

You mean the Mrs. Mortimer who did not appear at the inquest? Hmmmm.....

c.d.

[c.d.]

Trust me, if you find a dead body in your yard around midnight the last thing you will be looking for is a clock.

Exactly. And more than likely you won't be exhibiting clear, rational behavior with a 100% accurate recall of your actions.

Just look at the confusion, screw ups and overall bad judgment exhibited in trying to gain access to Kelly's room or the fiasco accompanying the attempt to photograph the GSG.

I think all the inaccuracies and contradictions in witness statements surrounding the Stride murder have more to do with the failings of human nature as opposed to cover ups and conspiracies.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Kozebrodski, Schwartz & Mortimer were not questioned at the inquest, so you can remove them from the equation if anything they say contradicts accepted testimony. By the way, I meant "close on 20 years", not 30, my mistake.

At the end of the day it is the medical testimony with regard to time of death that carries most weight, and Blackwell appears to place her death between 12:46-56 am, so testimony from witnesses who carried no watch will be worked in to the more reliable (in the view of the court) professional testimony.

You choose to place the words of Mrs Mortimer above the testimony of Dr Blackwell?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael.

You've been on this forum for how long?, close on 30 years?, long enough to know that times stated by witnesses who could not refer to a watch or clock are to be taken for what they are, just estimates. All the serious researchers know this, all those who speak with any credibility know this. Authors know this, members with some professional background know this. I'm pretty sure you know this, yet you pretend like you don't.
Why is that?

Diemschutz passed a shop at the top of the street and saw a clock, what we don't know is if that clock said 1:00 as he passed it, so his actual arrival at the yard is an estimate. Or, it was a minute or so before 1:00 as he passed the clock so he estimated his arrival as 1:00 am.
Either way, as he makes no reference to wearing a watch, we know his stated time was an estimate.

It doesn't matter whether the club had a clock, or whether it was accurate. Trust me, if you find a dead body in your yard around midnight the last thing you will be looking for is a clock.
The same applies to Lave, Kozebrodski & Eagle, any witness who was not wearing a watch can only estimate what the time was when the incident occurred.
But again, you've been on these boards long enough to know this, yet you prefer to pretend you don't.

Why is that Michael?

Because his story, like Eagles, and Laves and Schwartz directly contradict those who stated they were by the body in the passageway at 12:45. 4 of them. VS a few uncorrobertaed and independent accounts without any second source verification whatsoever. You've been here long enough Jon to know that multiple witnesses giving corroborated times and events that do not occur in singular, non verified statements, are far more probably the accurate ones. And in this case, the ones without bias.