A Whip and a Prod

[Wickerman]

Oh I see, he was just on his way home from a hard day's work!
So that's what the reporter meant by 'gone out for the day'

Here's me thinking; all these characters - broad shouldered man, tipsy man, pipeman and knifeman - are just the fictional creations of a troubled man with major marriage problems, when in truth we have a solid, hard working and honest citizen, making his way home after doing more hard work in one day than I would do in a month.

Thanks for clearing that up

"Moving house" quite possibly involved nothing more than packing two suitcases. Even Kelly's shabby little room was rented as "furnished".

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Are you talking about Randy Williams and his book SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE AUTUMN OF TERROR which names Diemschutz, Kozebrodski and Friedman as co-conspirators?

Oh, is that what he's talking about?
I have read reviews of that book, and interviews with the author.

Not only have I not named any of those 3 as murderers, let alone co-conspirators, my arguments against Diemschutz are very different.
For example, see the initial post in this thread.

[Robert St Devil]

But wait. Hold everything. There is already a book. I said this on this thread at the top of page 2 post #16. There is a book already accusing Louis D and implicating two others. I don't know the name of the book. Louis D Did It. I don't know. I don't know who wrote it. But yes it happened a couple years ago and was discussed here on Casebook. Did that blow completely past you, Michael? A book accusing Louie D and two others. They were the Ripper killers according to the author.

Why are these Louie D threads re-inventing the wheel? Or is this a discussion of that book? Or, are you the author, Detective Not Blamed for Not? Which is fine with me if you are the author. But we are all in a big metal pipe now that reverberates with the sound of something which is already in a book. And it's getting dark and I want a sandwich.

Paddy

Are you talking about Randy Williams and his book SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE AUTUMN OF TERROR which names Diemschutz, Kozebrodski and Friedman as co-conspirators?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then there are the specific issues to deal with...the police already want this club closed, how will this be interpreted in that regard? Will they close it down tonight? Who will have access to the club and the Arbeter Fraint office in the yard after a closure? Will staff get jobs at other socialist clubs...all of which were frowned upon by the local authorities. How will a dead woman found murdered on Jewish Immigrant property housing anarchist Socialists affect the local sentiments towards Socialists or immigrant Jews in general? Will this cause greater antisemitism than already exists...riots, violence against fellow Jews in the streets.

At this point, the club, if not the whole of the East End, needs something approaching a miracle to occur.
Something like; another woman being brutally murdered and ripped, within the hour, and within walking distance of the club.
That should do the trick!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not aware of that book, or the case made within it.

You should provide a link to the thread, the book, or both, before accusing anyone of re-inventing wheels, or not providing full disclosure.

[Paddy Goose]

But wait. Hold everything. There is already a book. I said this on this thread at the top of page 2 post #16. There is a book already accusing Louis D and implicating two others. I don't know the name of the book. Louis D Did It. I don't know. I don't know who wrote it. But yes it happened a couple years ago and was discussed here on Casebook. Did that blow completely past you, Michael? A book accusing Louie D and two others. They were the Ripper killers according to the author.

Why are these Louie D threads re-inventing the wheel? Or is this a discussion of that book? Or, are you the author, Detective Not Blamed for Not? Which is fine with me if you are the author. But we are all in a big metal pipe now that reverberates with the sound of something which is already in a book. And it's getting dark and I want a sandwich.

Paddy

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hey cd,

Not surprised your still hoping to find Jack in here somewhere, ...but....


On the last point Schwartz doesn't have to put himself on the spot as someone who witnessed a murder, that's high profile. Too much scrutiny. As it is he can come forward, create a club friendly "truth", and then just slip back into the shadows. Which he apparently did. I suspect he was chosen by Wess because of his inability to communicate in English.

Are you sure Schwartz couldn't communicate in English?

The Star: The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

Sounds like he could speak English, imperfectly.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think the stage needs to be set a little bit more before we can conclude that witnesses were lying and that there was a Club conspiracy.

Diemschutz - as the claimed discoverer of the body - is a person of interest.
It is therefore illegitimate to analyze witness testimony and press statements, as though these must be judged as accurate or otherwise, based on their compatibility with statements made by Louis.
Unbelievably though, this is precisely what most Ripperologists do.
In his book, Ripper Confidential, Tom Westcott simply assumes that Diemschutz' story about pulling into the yard at 1 am, and discovering a body, is true.
Other than the Stride murder, can you name a single criminal investigation case in which the discoverer of a body is not only assumed to be truthful and accurate in their critical statements, but who also effectively overrides the accounts of multiple other witnesses, including well regarded and experienced police constables?

Whtechapel residents must have been on edge from the previous murders. It's night time and 1:00 in the morning and a woman is discovered dead with her throat having been cut. People in that era were not time obsessed like we are today and many did not have a watch. Is it really surprising that witnesses gave conflicting statements? Look at all that went on when Kelly's body was found. Fear and adrenaline do not make for good witnesses.

The best example of that being Louis Diemschutz.
At least, that is the case after 1 am.
In reference to post #263, it seems clear that Diemschutz gave totally conflicting accounts of his location when observing the 1 am time, and therefore his direction of travel along Berner St. The inquest account was the day after the murder.
Let's think about this - when Diemschutz sees the clock at 1 am, he is creating a memory based on time, activity, location, a specific clock, and his direction of travel.
He says he observed the time at exactly 1 am, and this observation is now regarded as gospel.
So why is he so completely wrong about three of these details (location, clock, direction), just a couple of days after the event?
Furthermore, how can you be so sure about the 1 am time, given Louis has no idea about the other stuff?
I think you and almost everyone else needs to consider the possibility that Louis totally misremembers these other basic details, for a very good reason, and that reason is - his pony and cart were never in the yard, or even in Berner street, that night.

And even if we can conclude with absolute certainty that witness statements were incorrect can we conclude that they therefore must have been lying? No, that still has to be proved.

This is kinda back-to-front.
Witness statements made by club members, neighbors, police and doctors are mostly regarded, by myself, as correct (within a reasonable margin of error).
It is primarily Louis Diemschutz, who is regarded as making the incorrect statements.
On the contrary, it is the Diemschutz believers who must suppose that multiple witness statements are incorrect.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Let me put your conclusion above into perspective..... for Louis to be correct, about arriving at precisely 1, means that Fanny either lied or wasn't correct, and that 4 witnesses gave incorrect times, 3 of which had just arrived at that spot from inside the club where Im sure clocks were readily available.

The most important witnesses in regards to time of arrival to the yard, are the police and doctors (including Johnston).
It is part of their jobs to have good time awareness.
Times given by club members and neighbors are of value, but less so IMO.
There are ambiguities in some important accounts, and Spooner's times are a mess, but could possibly be salvaged to some extent.
I may post my own timeline analysis in a new thread if you only wate a whil longer.

Not one witness claimed to see or heard Louis arrive, Fanny's the only witness that even heard a cart and horse, after 1am, and she didn't know which way it was going, who was on the cart, or whether it belonged to Louis.

As already discussed, a pony and cart going by is not a commotion, and for someone inside their residence, a few people muttering in a lane a couple of doors down, is not a commotion either.
As for the direction of the cart, from inside this would be difficult to determine, due to the lack of directional cues. Same goes for the 'measured, heavy stamp'.

Louis is the only person who can verify his own account. Like Israel. Dangerous to accept them as the most probable stories, when you have 4 conflicting statements that all agree with each other.

Other than by Louis, there seems to be not a single eyewitness statement that places the pony and cart in the lane.
Imagine what the situation would have been like after Lamb and Spooner closed the gates - 30 people, a dead body, and a pony and cart, all within that short, 10ft wide lane.
It must have been so cramped and awkward!

[Michael W Richards]

I would think that the most natural reaction to discovering something traumatic is to try and allow the mind to digest it. If not, to have disbelief. Shock. In the case of the discovery of a dying woman on their own property, there must have been some shock initially. One wouldn't have a Response Plan in place for something like this back then. The steps to take would not be established. Go for a doctor first, or the Police? Try to find a beat patrolman or go to a station? Move the body or leave it where it is? Try to piece together what happened to the woman. Who goes for help...who stays in place to talk to the police when they arrive? Who tells the remaining members to stick around so they can be questioned?. Where do you keep them while waiting?

Then there are the specific issues to deal with...the police already want this club closed, how will this be interpreted in that regard? Will they close it down tonight? Who will have access to the club and the Arbeter Fraint office in the yard after a closure? Will staff get jobs at other socialist clubs...all of which were frowned upon by the local authorities. How will a dead woman found murdered on Jewish Immigrant property housing anarchist Socialists affect the local sentiments towards Socialists or immigrant Jews in general? Will this cause greater antisemitism than already exists...riots, violence against fellow Jews in the streets.

They make some decisions, one is that its best if no-one claims to have seen anything...even if they did, and another is that they must go for help soon so the police do not suspect a delay. When Louis says he arrived at 1 "precisely", and he can prove he left shortly thereafter, it appears as if there was no real delay...they immediately reacted and sent for help. Which by what I describe above, is actually unlikely. Any response would have been discussed first for the best way for the club to handle this. The problem for Louis is that A) a witness who would definitely seen and heard him arrive if between 12:50 and 1am didn't see or hear anyone before 1. She only heard a cart and horse about 4 minutes after 1. She could not tell which way that cart and horse were going because she was inside, and she didn't see Louis driving it.

The B) problem for Louis is more troubling......3 club members say they were alerted to this situation at around 12:40-12:45, and that they were by Louis in the passageway at that time. Another non-club member says roughly the same thing about that same time, that he was by the body then.

Fanny wasn't at her door continuously until 12:50...so she could have missed Louis arrive around 12:40...which brings up problem C) Eagle, Lave and Israel Schwartz all claimed to be near those gates around 12:40-12:45, Eagle and Lave don't even see each other or anyone else according to their statements, and no-one sees Israel. Or Pipeman, or BSM. But curiously the witness who would have had

By the the preponderance of evidence, based upon eyewitness testimony, the body was being discovered around 12:40-12:45 and they sent Louis and Eagle for help after 1.

Not only do they conspire to twist the times to make them look innocent, they also may have been complicit in Strides death, because the medical estimates for the earliest cut time is 12:46-12:56, had they reacted immediately, she may have lived. Her wound was severe, but she bled to death, it wasn't instantaneous.

[Michael W Richards]

Hey cd,

Not surprised your still hoping to find Jack in here somewhere, ...but....

Whitechapel residents must have been on edge from the previous murders. It's night time and 1:00 in the morning and a woman is discovered dead with her throat having been cut. People in that era were not time obsessed like we are today and many did not have a watch. Is it really surprising that witnesses gave conflicting statements? Look at all that went on when Kelly's body was found. Fear and adrenaline do not make for good witnesses.

Don't miss the distinctions here cd, not all people gave times that are unprovable, 4 gave the exact same times and 3 of them came from inside that same club. A fourth offsite witness gave the same time as they did. And a witness to the street from 2 doors down from the club did not see Louis arrive anytime between 12:50 until 1am. The club witnesses certainly had access to clocks, as did Fanny when in her home, so the people you really describe above are Louis, Morris, and Joseph. No-one saw Louis arrive, and even though Joseph and Morris gave the same time for being by the gates to the passageway, neither saw each other apparently. neither was Eagle sure a "body wasn't there" when he passed the murder site at 12:40-45. Louis must have arrived either earlier or later than 1, using Fannys recollection of hearing a cart and horse proves nothing but a cart and horse were passing by her doo, form one direction or the other. One cannot conclude that the unseen must have ben Louis, and even if one did, that means he arrived after 1, not at 1, like he said.

And even if we can conclude with absolute certainty that witness statements were incorrect can we conclude that they therefore must have been lying? No, that still has to be proved.

If someone said they arrived "precisely at 1" and another witness who had a clear view of that are should it have happened says no-one arrived at 1, nor was anyone seen approaching at 1, either the witness who was sure it was 1 lied or was incorrect. The word "precisely" is used here however, which tilts the scale towards a lie.

On the last point Schwartz doesn't have to put himself on the spot as someone who witnessed a murder, that's high profile. Too much scrutiny. As it is he can come forward, create a club friendly "truth", and then just slip back into the shadows. Which he apparently did. I suspect he was chosen by Wess because of his inability to communicate in English.

[c.d.]

I think the stage needs to be set a little bit more before we can conclude that witnesses were lying and that there was a Club conspiracy.

Whtechapel residents must have been on edge from the previous murders. It's night time and 1:00 in the morning and a woman is discovered dead with her throat having been cut. People in that era were not time obsessed like we are today and many did not have a watch. Is it really surprising that witnesses gave conflicting statements? Look at all that went on when Kelly's body was found. Fear and adrenaline do not make for good witnesses.

And even if we can conclude with absolute certainty that witness statements were incorrect can we conclude that they therefore must have been lying? No, that still has to be proved.

And finally, what seems to be overlooked in this attempt to cast doubt on Schwartz is that Schwartz never said he saw Stride being killed. If it was a conspiracy and he was willing to lie to protect the club why not go all the way and say he saw her being killed by the B.S.man.

All in all my vote is more for human failings than it is for a conspiracy.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

However, given a reasonable margin of error, a couple of main timelines should be able to fight for dominance.
At the moment, the reasoning seems to be; Diemschutz arrives at 1 am, and any statement from any individual that contradicts that, must be in error.

Let me put your conclusion above into perspective..... for Louis to be correct, about arriving at precisely 1, means that Fanny either lied or wasn't correct, and that 4 witnesses gave incorrect times, 3 of which had just arrived at that spot from inside the club where Im sure clocks were readily available.

Not one witness claimed to see or heard Louis arrive, Fanny's the only witness that even heard a cart and horse, after 1am, and she didn't know which way it was going, who was on the cart, or whether it belonged to Louis.

Louis is the only person who can verify his own account. Like Israel. Dangerous to accept them as the most probable stories, when you have 4 conflicting statements that all agree with each other.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

We are talking about a time when the man was expected to go out to work while the woman looked after the home. Younger generations today might not appreciate that. The times were different, it doesn't mean anything was amiss.

Oh I see, he was just on his way home from a hard day's work!
So that's what the reporter meant by 'gone out for the day'

Here's me thinking; all these characters - broad shouldered man, tipsy man, pipeman and knifeman - are just the fictional creations of a troubled man with major marriage problems, when in truth we have a solid, hard working and honest citizen, making his way home after doing more hard work in one day than I would do in a month.

Thanks for clearing that up

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Couple of responses, Ive looked through some old Stride threads for that timeline one, cant recall if it was Gen Discussion or Stride...or even a Locations posting. Ill poke around a bit for it, it can be recreated pretty easily though. Take all the statements, chart them. See what happens. You cannot use them all, that's the first thing youll find.

Thanks for having a look.
I realize there can be no single thorough timeline, with no contradictions.
However, given a reasonable margin of error, a couple of main timelines should be able to fight for dominance.
At the moment, the reasoning seems to be; Diemschutz arrives at 1 am, and any statement from any individual that contradicts that, must be in error.
It's as though there's an unwritten law - Thou shall not contradict the Louis

On the above, that is for me the weakest part of his story, someone like him would have very little in the way of belongings...immigrant, small cramped spaces to live in, I would think rentals like Marys room most places would have a ramshackle bed and a chair. So she would likely have been moving clothes, maybe some dishes. He left her 12 hours earlier, moving from what precise address we do not know, to move a small amount of goods.

In other words, 12 hours should be plenty.
Therefore, logic would dictate he should actually be going to the new address, but he doesn't, so ....

Now its just after a large meeting had ended outside a club that was likely full of immigrants Jews just like him..just happening to be passing by, in time to see a soon to be murder victim being accosted. Coincidental timing all over the place there.

Yes, it does seem a little too convenient!