Was Stride Really a JtR Victim?

[Bridewell]

because, i read somewhere smith said 'she had her hand on his chest'
was that not how the women approached their clients? according to Donald Rumbilow.
i dont know for sure, if she did, but it fits the facts, with the gates being open and closed
so i'm sticking with that theory untill disproved.
dutfield yard would be perfect to take her clients.
If she was not out soliciting, what was she doing with them men?

The hand on the chest was seen by Lawende with regard to the man talking to Eddowes. Right night but wrong murder.

[Phil H]

i'm sticking with the theory she was using the yard for her clients.
And she was closing the door.

What door? As both photographs and drawings make clear the GATES of Dutfield's Yard were double, large and heavy. If closed there was a wicket gate for pedestrian use, but when Liz was found the gates were open. Check your facts.

If you refer to some other door, which one?

The yard was dark and no one was about, most had gone home or where up stairs singing.

A huge generalisation. There was a kitchen and the yard was in use as access. Apart from the Club and comings and gioings from there, there were stables at the rear - Diemschitz was due to return remenber in his horse and cart.

how do you know she did not use the yard?

That is not the way the historical method works.There is NO EVIDENCE that she did - anything else would be baseless speculation. Neither do I have to prove that she did NOT use the yard. the onus is on you, claiming she did, to provide evidence to support your claim.

Phil

[ukranianphil]

Its not a huge generalization that the yard was dark and empty.
it obviously was for her to be murdered there.
please give references to where you get your information from, as i am not going go take your word. For example the weight of the doors, and the hand on the chest being a friendly greeting?

my apologies for getting the wrong murder.

[ukranianphil]

By wrong murder i mean, getting mixed up by Eddows and stride with the hand on the chest gesture.
loving the discussion though.

[Phil H]

please give references to where you get your information from, as i am not going go take your word. For example the weight of the doors, and the hand on the chest being a friendly greeting?

With respect, I am not here to act as your research assistant.

I suggest you look up the threads on Dutfields Yard in particular the one started when the 1909 photo was found.

Because I am a good guy, I attach some pics I had stored, for your information.the second pic shows a period when the gates had been replaced by iron gates, but will I hope give you a sense of scale. The bottom pic is William Stewart's model and shows the wicket gate inset into one of the two larger gates.

Whether you take my word for anything is, of course, up to you.

Phil

[ukranianphil]

Sorry if i came across as being hard, its just that i have been given false info in the past. Many thanks for the photographs.
hope i did not offend you?

[Phil H]

Not at all.

We all make mistakes, I know I do.

But Casebook has a wealth of resources, including pictorial ones and dissertations by experts. I find them extremely useful but my advice is always get as close to the original source as one can.

Phil

[DRoy]

I feel rather sorry for Israel Schwartz.

Something happened on Berner Street - a woman was murdered. Schwartz claims to have seen something. Nobody else admits to having seen anything at all. Why assume that Schwartz is the one telling lies? (Apologies if I've misunderstood your point).

Bridewell,

I don't think Schwartz lied. I think Michael has some good points and ideas about the club but i'm not convinced yet. My opinion is that Schwartz saw an assult (maybe on Stride, maybe on someone else) but that his original statement was misinterpreted or mistranslated. Hence not testifying at the inquest and seemingly disappearing shortly after as he isn't referenced as an important person by anyone after only a short couple weeks after the murder.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

longer

Hello Roy.

"he isn't referenced as an important person by anyone after only a short couple weeks after the murder."

Three weeks, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[DRoy]

Lynn,

Yes to be more precise. Then *poof* he's gone. You'd think that he would be mentioned at some point if they valued his statement as much as has been suggested.

Cheers
DRoy

[Stephen Thomas]

Then *poof* he's gone.

Theatrical appearance and all.

[lynn cates]

next

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Perhaps they were focusing on the next investigation?

I agree that the Leman lads lost interest. Wish I knew why they thought as they did.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

What I said was no "direct" connection. Schwartz never said he saw someone being murdered. He identified the woman who would become the victim and he talked about two men who he never claimed were connected to each other. He only made a statement of activity he witnessed. There is nothing in his statement that shows real knowledge of what happened. If he was involved in some cover up (which he wasn't), the information would have been certainly more damning to the man (men) he discussed.

Mike

Good Michael,

Damn.You are on fire today, my friend. Exactly. Schwartz never saw anybody murdered and only stated what he saw. We are the ones drawing conclusions. Liz was very much alive and kicking when he left the scene.

c.d.

[DRoy]

Hello Roy. Thanks.

Perhaps they were focusing on the next investigation?

I agree that the Leman lads lost interest. Wish I knew why they thought as they did.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,

Yes that is possible and a good assumption. Since Lawende was then and still considered a great witness then Schwartz's value could have lessened. Since everyone also assumed Liz was killed by Jack, they could very well have concentrated more so on Eddowes' murder and reliable witness.

Cheers
DRoy

[lynn cates]

"m J K"

Hello Roy. Thanks.

I should have been more clear. I was referring to "MJK."

Cheers.
LC