Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

and answers: "I feel certain"

Which didn't happen in this case, so why would that be relevant as an argument? Smith DID recognize Stride, and "didn't take much notice" of the man. He said so.

[Michael W Richards]

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

People seem to be ignorant of what a legitimate ID is Trevor...maybe lets save our finger tips to type responses to questions with merit.

[Joshua Rogan]

Which didn't happen in this case, so why would that be relevant as an argument? Smith DID recognize Stride, and "didn't take much notice" of the man. He said so.

Er... That was a direct quote from the Telegraph's inquest report;

"Coroner] Was the woman anything like the deceased? - Yes. I saw her face, and I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.
[Coroner] Are you certain? - I feel certain"

[Wickerman]

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.

What Wess "said" is "evidence".
What you "propose", 132 years later, is "speculation".
The police knew all about Wess, what he said, and who he left the club with, and when.

All you are doing is inventing a story with no evidence, and attempting to downplay actual evidence by accusing the witness of lying.
There is no factual basis for this argument.
Why do you think anyone should take this seriously?

[Michael W Richards]

Er... That was a direct quote from the Telegraph's inquest report;

"Coroner] Was the woman anything like the deceased? - Yes. I saw her face, and I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.
[Coroner] Are you certain? - I feel certain"

Ive been posting that Smith DID recognize Stride all along here Jon, so why you would post this to debate isnt easily understood. Its the "ID" of Wess that is in contention,...you know...the man he barely took notice of?

[Michael W Richards]

Michael.

What Wess "said" is "evidence".
What you "propose", 132 years later, is "speculation".
The police knew all about Wess, what he said, and who he left the club with, and when.

All you are doing is inventing a story with no evidence, and attempting to downplay actual evidence by accusing the witness of lying.
There is no factual basis for this argument.
Why do you think anyone should take this seriously?

Thats BS Jon, almost all of it. Wess's statement is evidence, yes, the veracity of what he said is unproven, unsubstantiated and non validated by any other sources. And as for lying....it on record that Louis lied. And Eagle, and Lave, because 4 people said they were by a dying woman in the passageway at 12:40-12:45...when Eagle and Lave claimed to both be there and not seeing each other or anyone else, and Louis DID NOT arrive at precisely 1 as he claimed, because Fanny was at her door from 12:50 until 1 and she didnt see or hear him. Nor did she see or hear Israel Scwartz, who by virtue of those 4 aforementioned witnesses, was incorrect or lied.

Provably lied. All the guys I mention might have lied can be shown to have done just that, so "no factual basis" is also BS.

What you take seriously is up to you Jon, just dont accuse others who are not entertaining delusional perspectives of making things up. Mybe you just misread things...Ill extend you that courtesy, but what I say likely occurred is supported and is within the established known statements of the witnesses in this case.

By all means though...Believe Louis, who we can prove lied about his arrival time...believe Eagle and Lave, whose statements dont even support each others let alone address the 4 contradictory statements for the same location and time, and believe Israel, whose statement if true would make him the last person to see Liz Stride alive ..and being manhandled no less, yet completely absent in all forms and formats from the Inquest into how she dies. Free will pal, do as you like. But stop unjustly accusing others of fabrication when they are just using the same evidence available to you...albeit, with more logic and reason.

[Michael W Richards]

Tell me one case where 4 witnesses that are all saying they were at a certain place at a certain time and witnessed certain things...all giving the same details are trumped by independent accounts with no corroboration or second party validation that state nothing was there or happening at the same place and time 4 others said it was?

The records are clear. The facts are there. Louis and some other members at the club were around the dying woman at 12:40 to 12:45. Louis did not arrive "precisely" at 1. Louis did not go out searching with Isaac Kozebrodski after 1, he went with Issac[s] because Issac K went out alone 15 minutes before that by his own statement..Eagle and Lave either lied or gave incorrect times, because when they say they were in an empty passage alone, a bunch of others say they were there with Louis by the body at that same time. And the biggest lie of them all comes from the Star witness Sunday night, another uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and later ignored statement, provably wrong because a bunch of people say other things were happening by the dying woman at 12:45..and they were already in the passageway.

Why the Inquest was run like it was is unknown...like who was actually accurately Id'd as the victim for one..., why they chose to let all the uncorroborated witnesses testify and none of the ones who validate each others accounts is at the very least, odd and misrepresentative of the gathered evidence..and why Israel Schwartz still factors into peoples theories at all is frustratingly bizarre. But stating people lied here is supportable and not idle conjecture.

The essential presumption here, made by many over the years, is that Liz Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper who later went on to kill again that night. Despite the fact that her murder is nothing like any other Ripper victim. Thats based on a premise that is also not present in any evidence anywhere...interruptions. So the real peddlers of falsehoods and wild speculations are not the people questioning every aspect of this crime, and some of the others... its the ones that accept the plate full of crap and just eat it anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

It occurred to me that the supporters of Israel Schwartz here must believe there was a Police conspiracy to withhold his evidence at the Inquest while at the same time investigating the crime using said evidence. A conspiracy? Now, if this is to be a duel of conspiracy theories I put this forward....which is more likely, the police conspiring to use Israels evidence secretly while giving it no respect at the Inquest into how Liz Stride died, or a small group of semi poor men who give a story that protects the club and their livelihood?

The scrutiny on the police at that time and the relationship that some press people had with the Police members suggests that a secret might have been difficult to keep inside the organization. The scrutiny on the club and its members by the Police necessitated some positive perspective towards them..at that time...each scenario would have its pressures, which one of the 2 theories seems to be more reasonable?

[Fantomas]

A club aspect - mirroring the multiple killer theory of Stephen Knight - has always intrigued me as a theory. A letter to the Fortean Times in the late 1990s suggested that the Tower of London Beefeaters had a "Henry the Eighth" club that dared its members to go out and kill a lady of the night in a macabre tontine. Easy enough for persons billeted at the Tower, near Whitechapel.

[Wickerman]

Thats BS Jon, almost all of it. Wess's statement is evidence, yes, the veracity of what he said is unproven, unsubstantiated and non validated by any other sources.

You're missing the point Michael. We know from other sources the police interviewed every club member (meaning his brother & the friend), Wess wasn't even in Berner St. at the time PC Smith was opposite the club, Wess left the club 15 minutes earlier. And, when he was in Berner St. he was in company of two other members - three Jews leaving the club together, and Wess wasn't carrying any paperwork.
The only contribution you have to this scenario is to say "Wess could have lied", well anyone could have lied, even PC Smith - so maybe there was no 'parcel-man' suspect after all.
Where does that leave your argument now?
Two can play that game Michael.

By all means though...Believe Louis, who we can prove lied about his arrival time...believe Eagle and Lave, whose statements dont even support each others let alone address the 4 contradictory statements for the same location and time, and believe Israel, whose statement if true would make him the last person to see Liz Stride alive ..and being manhandled no less, yet completely absent in all forms and formats from the Inquest into how she dies.....

We (you, me & everyone else) don't have any proof Louis, Eagle or Lave lied about anything.

[c.d.]

Contradictory or unsupported statements are not necessarily lies.

And again for the fifty millionth trillionth time NO ONE KNOWS why Schwartz did not appear at the inquest.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

People seem to be ignorant of what a legitimate ID is Trevor...maybe lets save our finger tips to type responses to questions with merit.

For those who do not know a positive identification is for a witness to positively Id a person because they know them either by name or otherwise,

Or for them to say I am positive that the person who I saw committing the crime is the person who is subject of the identification

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk