Who Died in Dutfield's Yard?

[mpriestnall]

Hi Martyn
It was A C Bruce who wrote off Packer as a fool to the blind by moving the times ..... not the only occasion times shifted during the investigation

Where the red fruit stains on Stride's handkerchief came from , the ones that Phillips didn't spot the first time, is anyone's guess but it will be any red fruit you can conjure up other than black grape skins ..... it will never be from black grape skin

Hi packers stem

Thanks for your response and apologies for the lateness of mine.

I have pm'd you.

Martyn

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I can see formal Identification of the deceased, but Im still a little baffled why they would try to decide who the victim was by offering different identifications on the stand. I cant recall any other Inquest data Ive read that allows for the open discussion about who the victim was as the Inquest is underway. Odd kind of thing...unless, as I said, one purpose was to identify the victim publicly...which means put a name, officially, to it. Even so...

Hi Michael,

It's certainly an unusual aspect. If we take LVP standards of identification and the fact that no one seems to use their one, real, name, might it have been a case of having two conflicting but equally plausible identities? MM was convinced it was her sister so it's understandable why the authorities took her seriously. But, MK and the Swedish Vicar also established a reliable identity for a totally different person so perhaps having both at inquest was part of establishing that fact but when MM's sister appears alive and well, then Swedish Liz it is. Doesn't explain why this would be done in public though?
It would be interesting to see inquests of the period where identity was disputed, not just uncertain but actively disputed. It must have happened, probably for similar reasons as the Titchbourne Claimant and look how that rumbled on. Identity in the LVP was anything but clear.

[Michael W Richards]

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/inf...quest_system/4


What is the purpose of an inquest?


An inquest is a public judicial inquiry to find the answers to a limited but important set of questions:

• Who the deceased was
• When and where they died
• The medical cause of their death
• How they came by their death

(my emphasis)

I can see formal Identification of the deceased, but Im still a little baffled why they would try to decide who the victim was by offering different identifications on the stand. I cant recall any other Inquest data Ive read that allows for the open discussion about who the victim was as the Inquest is underway. Odd kind of thing...unless, as I said, one purpose was to identify the victim publicly...which means put a name, officially, to it. Even so...

[drstrange169]

Hah! Should read, "No yard distinction in the 1881 census,"

[drstrange169]

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/inf...quest_system/4


What is the purpose of an inquest?


An inquest is a public judicial inquiry to find the answers to a limited but important set of questions:

• Who the deceased was
• When and where they died
• The medical cause of their death
• How they came by their death

(my emphasis)

[drstrange169]

Hello Gary,
No years distinction in the 1881 census, so who knows either way. By 1891 the club had radically changed, the militant Knights of Liberty taking over the premises and all club members kicked out a year later, due to council regulations. Wess gives a description of the rooms and there are a couple of articles about anarchist clubs that describe the layout.

[Michael W Richards]

>>I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. <<

Police don't put people on the stand at an inquest, the coroner chooses the witnesses. One of the purposes of an inquest is to establish the identity of the deceased.

Really? Never heard that before, I thought it was to establish the cause of death by an identified, if only as a Jane Doe sort of thing, victim. I can see its a venue where the identifications are presented by the witnesses, didn't hear before that the identification of the victim, if unknown or in dispute, needs to be settled at the Inquest. Seems to me that should be done first.

[MrBarnett]

>>Where do you imagine Israel Goldstein and his large household were situated?<<

I've always assumed they lived in one of the cottages like Mila the maid did. If children were in the club when police searched it, I'm sure we would have heard about it.

The 1891 census makes a clear distinction between the houses in the ‘stable yard’ and 40, BS itself. IG and his large clan were at no. 40.

Do you know if there’s a plan or a written description of the layout of the club?

[drstrange169]

>>I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. <<

Police don't put people on the stand at an inquest, the coroner chooses the witnesses. One of the purposes of an inquest is to establish the identity of the deceased.

[drstrange169]

>>Where do you imagine Israel Goldstein and his large household were situated?<<

I've always assumed they lived in one of the cottages like Mila the maid did. If children were in the club when police searched it, I'm sure we would have heard about it.

[drstrange169]

>> ...not a police whistle and Louis cart.<<

It seems when a witness says they are unsure, like Heshburg and his guess at the time, you claim they are sure.

Yet, when they say the are sure, like Heshburg saying he specifically heard a police whistle, you claim they are unsure.

Ultimately we need to go with actual information not personal conspiracy theories. Since Mortimer heard the cart after she went in and Spooner, nor anybody else for that matter, doesn't mention a cart passing after they arrived, your story disappears up its own speculation.


>> No-one saw anyone. And you've used the "deserted streets" from Fanny without then contrasting that with Israel Schwartz.The street cant be both.<<

Since I've always said I've had difficulties with Schwartz's story, I'm not sure what your point is.


>> Sure, Spooners time is subjective <<

There you go again, Spooner didn't say "a time" he made two guesses, the fact that you keep refusing to acknowledge this, says it all.


>> but handily we have 3 other witnesses to substantiate it. <<

You keep saying this , but you've yet to show us how anyone of your witnesses stated the time by a clock rather than simply guessing the time.

Neither do any of your witnesses guesses fit in with any of the independent witnesses:

Heshburg, proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt.

Kozebrodski, due to his poor English, doesn't give us a single direct quote to go by.

Who else?

On the other hand, Mortimer totally disproves your theory, full stop.

On top of her, story we can add:
Letchford's sister disproves your theory
Lave, if correct, disproves the story about people being in the yard at 20 to 1.
Brown hears and sees none of it.
The police and doctors are consistent with Diemshitz.
The kitchen staff are consistent with Diemshitz.
30 people in the room upstairs claim the alarm was raised after 1:00.
Two, possibly four people could confirm Wess's story.

What ever why you carve it up, your theory falls apart when the facts are inserted.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael

I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

but let’s have it again:

Unless Im mistaken the coroner gets his list of potentials from the police investigations and interviews. And I don't do linked pages Kattrup...if people are too lazy to look things up for themselves, so be it.

This ID thing isn't a simple matter by the by. Its confusing, and mystifying.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael

I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

but let’s have it again:

A New Zealand paper is credited with publishing this the following December..."The sister of the poor woman Stride was a gin soddened virago, and identified her mutilated relative with ghoulish relish. From first to last this woman's transparent object was to turn the catastrophe to account somehow. So obvious did the past become that the coroner doubted whether she was the deceased's sister. Others, too, were sceptical on the point. But the story she told in the main proved accurate. Not one word of honest pity for the dead woman's shocking fate crossed her lips. Her own goodness and generosity to her poor sister was the never ending theme of her discourse, or would have been, if the coroner had not cut her short."<sup>[3]"

So the premise is that Mary Malcom was presented as the de-facto ID going into the Inquest and Elizabeth Watts sudden appearance during the proceedings made that impossible ? What about the fact that multiple witnesses ID'd Stride her as the same person Michael Kidney did? If they thought she was grandstanding as the above insinuates, then why not hold off on the Inquest and verify precisely whom it was that was the victim first? Why have 2 different women claimed to be the victim at the Inquest? Isnt this just part of what Due Diligence is?</sup>

[Kattrup]

So, since we are having sidebar discussions I though we could redirect back to the thread a bit....

I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. Did they assume that Kelly was related to her, did someone come forward we don't know about, or did they presume it was Mary Malcolm who was mistaken...and in the second case, if so why in heavens name would she have any place at that Inquest?

Hello Michael

I’m not sure why you think the police put MM on the stand, as far as I know inquests were conducted by coroners.

I believe you yourself have linked to the page”The identification of Elizabeth Stride” by Dave Yost with input from SEB.

but let’s have it again:

Coroner Baxter adds to the doubts regarding Malcolm's identification before she even testified despite claims of being a sister of the victim. With 110 years of 20-20 hindsight regarding Elizabeth's real name, it might be difficult for us to understand why Malcolm was still permitted to offer her evidence at the inquest. To explain this, I defer to Stewart Evans. "At a Coroner's inquest proper identification of the deceased is only recognized when it is a proper LEGAL Identification of the body, by someone who was related in some way to the person TO the Coroner's officer and a written statement is taken to that effect." Hence, at this early stage in the case, since Malcolm claimed a blood relation to the victim, the court was compelled to hear her testimony. It should also be pointed out that Michael Kidney was only Stride's lover (and did not testify till 3 October). Hence, Malcolm's identification took precedence (till disproved)

[Michael W Richards]

So, since we are having sidebar discussions I though we could redirect back to the thread a bit....

I have a rather simple question regarding the identification of the woman in the morgue as 2 different women. The Police mentioned a mistaken "relative", yet put Mary Malcolm on the stand anyway. Did they assume that Kelly was related to her, did someone come forward we don't know about, or did they presume it was Mary Malcolm who was mistaken...and in the second case, if so why in heavens name would she have any place at that Inquest?