Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Whip and a Prod

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MWR: Don't see Israel as a suspect here myself, there isn't any evidence other than his given times...though again I suspect his statements value was not time dependent. It was off site aggressive Gentile dependent.
    MWR: Anderson claimed that during Septembers door to door inquiries, which he missed.. being in Paris, led him to conclude a local immigrant jew was likely the man they looked for, the neighbours and the cops wanted the club closed, and the general sentiments towards immigrant jews was dangerously negative. Without gentile "Lipski" yelling man, like as it appears the story goes in the Inquest, the closest people to Liz at the time of the murder wqere street residents and local jews.

    One just has to observe the tragic erasure of the GSG to see how volatile the area was thought to be concerning Jews.
    Let's compare the notion of Schwartz as suspect, versus Schwartz as implicator of a Gentile, using the text from Swanson's report.

    Here is the relevant section, split into 4 parts, for the sake of argument.

    A
    12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away ...
    B
    ... but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far.
    C
    Marginal note: The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew.
    D
    Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.
    If Schwartz' purpose is merely to implicate a Gentile in the murder, then he has fully achieved this in part A.
    At the end of part A, he is walking away from the scene - he never interferes with it, and never speaks.
    BS Man has already shouted 'Lipski', and therefore Pipeman is superflous to requirements.

    In part B, Pipeman chases Schwartz away, or at least follows him with intent.
    What has this to do with implicating the murderer as a Gentile?
    Pipeman does not need to exist, to achieve this!

    The crucial question then arises - why does Schwartz add Pipeman to the story?
    Does he need an excuse to run away from the vicinity of the murder location?
    Could that be because he was seen running away from the murder location?
    Does part B actually suggest that Schwartz was chased away from the murder location, because he was involved with the murder?

    Part C suggests that, in practice, your theory of 'Lipski' as a way of implicating a gentile, failed completely.
    A dissertation on the subject quotes a Home Office memo:

    It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.
    Part D suggests that Schwartz got a good look at Stride.
    He did not get a good look at Stride from within the club, unless she were also inside it at some point.
    I doubt very much that he could have got a good look at Stride, the way he describes things ...

    BS Man stops at Stride, probably obscuring her from Schwartz' view, and Stride, being at the edge of the gateway, is probably in a pretty dark location.
    BS Man then tries to pull her to the street, but ends up throwing her down on the footway. Schwartz then crosses the street.
    He never gets a good look at her face, yet somehow he is able to identifier her at the mortuary.
    Is that because Schwartz got a much better look at Stride, than we are led to believe?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



      When The Star reporter chased him down, it turned out that he could speak some English.
      Abberline apparently believed that he couldn't speak a word of it.
      This amounts to a serious deception!
      Speaking his native language at the interview would have prevented Abberline picking up on subtle cues and hesitations, in Schwartz' speech.
      It is a far more serious deception than 'Cross/Lechmere'.
      The Star clearly states that Israel speaks no English and has an interpreter at hand, the same one who translated for Abberline, on account of the fact The Star again clearly states that the reporter knew he was going to the station and caught up with him. How accurate The Star report is is another matter, but at no point does it imply something akin to "the Mizen scam".
      Them's the vagaries.

      Comment


      • NBFN, the reasoning for a story that includes elements that are not necessary to plant the seeds of suspicion on BSM, who by reasonable interpretation is portrayed as a likely anti-Semitic thug, is because any good story has a beginning and an end. When people lie don't they tend to offer a story that has many flowery elements that have nothing to do with the principle lie itself?

        The whole thing for me is that if you wish to use all the statements you will be unable to get a cohesive 30 minute interval recorded, that last 30 minutes.

        12:30-Wess leaves club via passageway and gates
        12:35-PC Smith sees Liz talking to someone, Fanny at her door sees young couple, Lave comes to the gates
        12:40-Eagle says he arrives at the gates, "couldnt be sure a body wasn't there", Lave is also at the gates, the young couple is still around.
        12:40-12:45- Issac Kozebrodski, Abraham Heschburg, a member named Gillen, and Edward Spooner say they were in the passageway standing over Liz. Louis is said to be there, others were also there. Issac says he was sent out to get help. James Brown sees the young couple. Israel Schwartz says he saw a man assault Liz Stride outside the gates, then yell "Lipski" at either him or to another man across the street. The other man chased him off.
        12:46-Estimated earliest cut time for Liz Stride
        12:50 Fanny is back at the door
        12:55 Fanny sees Goldstein pass by the club gates and look in. She describes the street as "deserted".
        1:00 Louis claims to arrive at the club, Fanny goes indoors, having seen nothing since Goldstein.

        That paints a picture of that last 1/2 hour.

        Lave doesn't see Eagle, or vice versa.
        Eagle didn't know if a body lay there at the time when he arrives
        4 witnesses state they were by the body, with others, around 12:40-12:45. One witness states the neck wound was flowing freely.
        No-one sees Israel, BSM, Pipeman or hears any call out across the street.
        Louis says he arrives "precisely" at 1, and states he got the time from a local clock. No-one sees him arrive.
        Fanny hears a cart and horse shortly after going inside, she cannot reliably state which direction it was going, or who was driving it.

        Semi deserted street, young couple, Goldstein. No BSM, Israel, Pipeman, no Louis arrival at 1 based on Fannys statement. No confirmation from Eagle that the woman was not lying there when he passed. No Eagle sees Lave standing there, or vice versa. 4 witnesses all independently giving the same approximate time and circumstances.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • All emphasis mine...

          Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

          The Star clearly states that Israel speaks no English and has an interpreter at hand, the same one who translated for Abberline, on account of the fact The Star again clearly states that the reporter knew he was going to the station and caught up with him. How accurate The Star report is is another matter, but at no point does it imply something akin to "the Mizen scam".
          Here is the Star report, broken down into logical sections.

          A
          Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them.
          B
          A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane. 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. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing.
          C
          It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ...
          D
          ... but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.
          E
          He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society.
          F
          The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.
          Part A indicates the visit to Leman Street police station occurred late on the day of the murder.
          The Star interview occurred the following day.

          Part A also indicates that the police (including Abberline) regarded Schwartz as having no English at all.
          Part B indicates this to be false.
          Putting these points together, suggests some level of deception has occurred.

          Parts C & D follow the same pattern as in the Swanson report.
          The story could end at the end of part C, but then Schwartz would almost be obliged to state what he learnt when he turned back to see what the matter was.
          Knifeman to the rescue! Just in time.

          In part D we learn that Schwartz actually flees to his new lodgings in Ellen St, quite a bit closer to where he runs from, than the railway arch.
          Apparently the railway arch bit was also a lie, but hard to pick the lie when the witness is using a foreign language.

          In part C, we learn that Schwartz has been out all day, and away from his wife, while she moves to the new address.
          We are not told what Schwartz does during this period. I wonder if stops at a pub, during his mysterious day out?
          In part E, we learn that tipsy man was respectably dressed, as was Schwartz at the station.
          It's almost as though this character and this real man, have a shared identity.

          In part F, the Star reporter implies that he thinks Schwartz is full of it.

          In the Mrs. Kuer’s Lodger dissertation, Gavin Bromley states the Schwartz and his family may have been in England for 3 years, by Sep '88.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            NBFN, the reasoning for a story that includes elements that are not necessary to plant the seeds of suspicion on BSM, who by reasonable interpretation is portrayed as a likely anti-Semitic thug, is because any good story has a beginning and an end. When people lie don't they tend to offer a story that has many flowery elements that have nothing to do with the principle lie itself?
            An adequate end to the story would be Pipeman saying something to Schwartz, which he doesn't understand (language barrier), and then Schwartz continuing to walk down Berner, while Pipeman continues to smoke. Perhaps Schwartz also turns to see BS Man walking away in disgust, while Liz 'dusts herself off'.
            Problem is; that cannot be part of the story - Schwartz needs to leave the woman & BS man situation, open-ended - it is left (deliberately) to you and I, to fill in the blank.
            However, Pipeman enters the story at a huge risk to the storyteller.
            If Pipeman stays at the corner enjoying his pipe, he can potentially corroborate Schwartz' story, if tracked down.
            As it stands though, Pipeman looks more like an accomplice to BS Man, thus making Schwartz story rather harder to believe.
            Having said that, it does appear to have worked on Abberline, although not so on the Star reporter, who can apparently see right though Schwartz' BS.

            The whole thing for me is that if you wish to use all the statements you will be unable to get a cohesive 30 minute interval recorded, that last 30 minutes.
            Agreed!

            12:30-Wess leaves club via passageway and gates
            12:35-PC Smith sees Liz talking to someone, Fanny at her door sees young couple, Lave comes to the gates
            12:40-Eagle says he arrives at the gates, "couldnt be sure a body wasn't there", Lave is also at the gates, the young couple is still around.
            Eagle seemed a lot more certain at the inquest.
            12:40-12:45- Issac Kozebrodski, Abraham Heschburg, a member named Gillen, and Edward Spooner say they were in the passageway standing over Liz. Louis is said to be there, others were also there. Issac says he was sent out to get help. James Brown sees the young couple. Israel Schwartz says he saw a man assault Liz Stride outside the gates, then yell "Lipski" at either him or to another man across the street. The other man chased him off.
            IK's 12:40 estimate, and AH's 12:45 estimate, seem too early to me. However, that is what they said!
            Where does Gillen state or imply he was over the body at in that period?
            Spooner's 12:35 time is improbable. However, I think I know what he really said, which I will get to in another thread.

            12:46-Estimated earliest cut time for Liz Stride
            I believe Blackwell thought 12:56 was more likely than 12:46.
            At the moment, I'm supposing 12:51-12:55 is the time of death window.

            12:50 Fanny is back at the door
            She is probably never more than a few metres from the front door, in the entire 12:30-1:00 am period.
            12:55 Fanny sees Goldstein pass by the club gates and look in. She describes the street as "deserted".
            Are you sure this occurs at about 12:55?
            In which direction does she see him walking?
            By the way, why do you suppose Walter Dew was so suspicious of this person?

            1:00 Louis claims to arrive at the club, Fanny goes indoors, having seen nothing since Goldstein.
            Louis claims to see a clock at 1:00. He is unsure where this occurs, and consequently he must be unsure of which clock he sees.
            Therefore his time of arrival can't be pinned down to anything more accurate than 1:00-1:03, and that assumes the dubious pony and cart story is true.


            That paints a picture of that last 1/2 hour.
            A picture with so much time distortion that Salvador Dali would have trouble depicting it.

            Lave doesn't see Eagle, or vice versa.
            Eagle didn't know if a body lay there at the time when he arrives
            4 witnesses state they were by the body, with others, around 12:40-12:45. One witness states the neck wound was flowing freely.
            I would say 2, the other 2 later (but before 1 am).
            No-one sees Israel, BSM, Pipeman or hears any call out across the street.
            After the Star interview on Oct 1, no one related to the investigation sees or hears from this slippery character, ever again!
            Louis says he arrives "precisely" at 1, and states he got the time from a local clock. No-one sees him arrive.
            Fanny hears a cart and horse shortly after going inside, she cannot reliably state which direction it was going, or who was driving it.
            No she doesn't - the Star reporter hears it on her behalf, after adding 4 minutes of time, after his definition of her outside vigil.
            This is the same reporter that spends a lot of time talking to Diemschutz, during the day.
            He almost repeats some of Louis' phrases, word for word, and picks up on the grapes story.
            Fanny is never quoted, stating that she hears the pony and cart - she hears a commotion in one quote, and cries for police in another. Nothing else.
            There is no pony and cart!


            Semi deserted street, young couple, Goldstein. No BSM, Israel, Pipeman, no Louis arrival at 1 based on Fannys statement. No confirmation from Eagle that the woman was not lying there when he passed. No Eagle sees Lave standing there, or vice versa. 4 witnesses all independently giving the same approximate time and circumstances.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • I have suggested this here before, but it perhaps bears repeating...IF Israel Schwartz was at the club that night, and he attended the meeting, and on his way out via the passageway he sees Liz inside the gates with someone quietly arguing, or perhaps struggling, then almost every other witness statement can be re-made to fit the last half hour. Almost. If he sees what he says he saw around 12:42-:45... only inside the gates...then Eagle is already inside, Lave is back inside the cottage, and it allows for the people who say they were by the body at around 12:40-12:45 to be correct. The only round peg for this square peg board would be....LOUIS.

              The club steward, and the person with the most responsibility to the club and its management onsite at between 12:30-1:00am.

              As it sits with Israels given story, and with the 4 witnesses who say they were by the body at 12:45ish...and Louis's account claiming he arrived "precisely at 1am" (that "precisely was in Louis's actual statement), there are too many contradictory accounts left, too many questions left.

              If as I suggest the episode Schwartz describes takes place around the same time, but inside the gates, fewer problems exist. Having him give a story that has it taking place off the property is likely for the benefit of Wess, Diemshutz and anyone else who would be dramatically impacted by suspicions.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                All emphasis mine...


                Part A indicates the visit to Leman Street police station occurred late on the day of the murder.
                The Star interview occurred the following day.

                Part A also indicates that the police (including Abberline) regarded Schwartz as having no English at all.
                Part B indicates this to be false.
                Putting these points together, suggests some level of deception has occurred.

                Parts C & D follow the same pattern as in the Swanson report.
                The story could end at the end of part C, but then Schwartz would almost be obliged to state what he learnt when he turned back to see what the matter was.
                Knifeman to the rescue! Just in time.

                In part D we learn that Schwartz actually flees to his new lodgings in Ellen St, quite a bit closer to where he runs from, than the railway arch.
                Apparently the railway arch bit was also a lie, but hard to pick the lie when the witness is using a foreign language.

                In part C, we learn that Schwartz has been out all day, and away from his wife, while she moves to the new address.
                We are not told what Schwartz does during this period. I wonder if stops at a pub, during his mysterious day out?
                In part E, we learn that tipsy man was respectably dressed, as was Schwartz at the station.
                It's almost as though this character and this real man, have a shared identity.

                In part F, the Star reporter implies that he thinks Schwartz is full of it.

                In the Mrs. Kuer’s Lodger dissertation, Gavin Bromley states the Schwartz and his family may have been in England for 3 years, by Sep '88.
                I don't think the statements about Schwartz's level of English conflict. The Star reads "The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand,...", and the first bit is just a colourful way of confirming the reporter could no more speak Hungarian than Schwartz could speak English (i.e. none at all), and this is bolstered by the statement that there was an interpreter available. I don't think that creates a conflict sufficient to suggest there was any deception involved.

                Fleeing to Ellen Street makes a lot more sense than the railway arch, but whether that conflict is a result of the Star or the police making an error (of or via the interpreter) or Schwartz himself changing his story is unknown, and all three possibilities need to be considered. Obviously, Schwartz changing his story would be suspicious, the other two could reflect confusion that arises through an interpreter (i.e. if Schwartz said in the direction of the railway arch and this was recorded as if meaning to the railway arch with the police, then he may simply have rephrased the same thing but this time his choice of words happened to clarify it better; just presenting something to illustrate what I'm getting at, obviously, I don't know what was said or intended, only what is recorded).

                The most important change is that the pipe becomes a knife, and it is the 2nd taller man who shouts the warning, while in the police version the knife is a pipe and it is the man attacking Stride that shouts "Lipski" as a warning to the 2nd man according to Schwartz (Abberline is of the opinion that Schwartz was mistaken, and the shout of "Lipski" was directed at Schwartz himself as an insult).

                Whether the reporter got confused at the time he wrote up the story from his notes, or he embellished the story, or Schwartz changed his story, is unknown, but we do have lots of examples of the first two happening in the press at the time, so again, all three possibilities need to be considered. Only the last one would be a concern, but of course, it's in the running.

                In Part F, is the man being referred to the man in police custody or Schwartz himself though? I rather tend to agree with you that it probably is in reference to Schwartz, that there was some doubt as to the accuracy of his testimony, but I'm not entirely sure it's saying that the entire story is in doubt.

                Still, we're only differing in degrees here.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  I have suggested this here before, but it perhaps bears repeating...IF Israel Schwartz was at the club that night, and he attended the meeting, and on his way out via the passageway he sees Liz inside the gates with someone quietly arguing, or perhaps struggling, then almost every other witness statement can be re-made to fit the last half hour. Almost.
                  If Israel Schwartz was at the club that night?
                  Well he probably would be if that were his home address!
                  It wasn't until after the double event that Schwartz moved to 22 Ellen St.

                  The best census match found to an Israel Schwartz, of about the right age and address, is from the 1891 census.
                  By that stage the family is living at 22 Samuel St, with a daughter, and a very young son, named Louis.
                  By the way, did you know that Leon Goldstein lived at 22 Christian St, and Charles Cross lived at 22 Doveton St?
                  In 1885 there was a Sarah Schwartz living at 22 Backchurch Lane, so perhaps Israel was in England by that stage, and learning the language?
                  On the night of the double event, there was that funny goings on, at 22 Batty St, possibly linked to Israel.
                  In 1905, an Egyptian American supposedly confessed to the Whitechapel murders. He name was Charles Hermann.
                  There is a Nap Hermann in the 1891 census, living at 22 Ellen St, the address Israel gave to Abberline.

                  If he sees what he says he saw around 12:42-:45... only inside the gates...then Eagle is already inside, Lave is back inside the cottage, and it allows for the people who say they were by the body at around 12:40-12:45 to be correct.
                  Lave back inside? Is there a quote to back this up?
                  The quote I pasted into #445 does seem to support this.

                  The only round peg for this square peg board would be....LOUIS.
                  Louis doesn't remember from what direction he arrived at the club.
                  He can't remember what room he found his wife in.
                  He saw grapes that weren't there.
                  Louis doesn't know if he's coming or going.

                  The club steward, and the person with the most responsibility to the club and its management onsite at between 12:30-1:00am.

                  As it sits with Israels given story, and with the 4 witnesses who say they were by the body at 12:45ish...and Louis's account claiming he arrived "precisely at 1am" (that "precisely was in Louis's actual statement), there are too many contradictory accounts left, too many questions left.

                  If as I suggest the episode Schwartz describes takes place around the same time, but inside the gates, fewer problems exist. Having him give a story that has it taking place off the property is likely for the benefit of Wess, Diemshutz and anyone else who would be dramatically impacted by suspicions.
                  Let's have a look at some evidence ...
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • From The Echo, Oct 1 (emphasis added to the interesting bits, with a tiny bit of editing for missing words) ...

                    Very little additional information was to be obtained (writes an Echo reporter shortly after noon) concerning the murder of the woman Stride up till noon to-day. Except for a couple of hundred or so of men, women, and children, whose morbid curiosity had attracted them to the scene of the crime, there was nothing to indicate that another of these mysterious murders had taken place. Among the loungers were, of course, many who professed to be in possession of all the details connected with the unfortunate woman's death, but on being questioned, it transpired that the stories which they were obligingly disposed to relate were nothing more than conjecture. Several men who were surrounded by respective groups of eager listeners went so far as to say that the woman Stride had been seen in the neighbourhood of Berner-street about twelve o'clock on Saturday night in company with a middle-aged man of dark complexion, but here the description of the supposed murderer of the woman stopped. In answer to questions, however, neither of the men would father the story, preferring to escape any direct, or to them inconvenient, inquiries on the subject by saying "They had heard so."

                    So far there is no actual clue to the perpetrator of the murder, and the police are now somewhat reticent as to whether they believe the Berner-street and the Mitre-square crimes were committed by the same hand- a matter, on which, however, the police have come to a prompt decision. In Berner-street the gateway within which the woman Stride was enticed is to-day closed, and in charge of two police-constables of the Metropolitan district; but the sack manufacturer and cart builder, whose premises are situated behind the house in which the International and Education Club meetings are held, are carrying on their business as usual, the employees of both gaining access and egress to the yard by means of a wicket-gate in the right hand half of the gate itself. The police in charge have little trouble in keeping the footpath clear, and it is only when the wicket is opened to allow of someone passing out of the yard, that the constables have to use a little force to keep back the crowd, who are anxious to obtain a glimpse of the spot where the body of the murdered woman was found.

                    The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee. The fee, the secretary explained, was to [???]. The committee, it seems, did not fix the amount to be charged; but, in reply to a question, the secretary said he thought that 5s. would not be too much. Considering there is nothing to be seen, this is rather an extortionate price to be paid by those whose curiosity leads them to Berner-street.

                    In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [as to the difficulty that] was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [retrieved ?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [a] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.
                    Profiteering Socialists.

                    A man chased away at ~12:45, whom 'the public' regarded as the murderer.

                    A club secretary who just can't seem to remember the name of the man who did the chasing.

                    The body allegedly discovered 15 minutes before a constable arrived.

                    Something to see here, Ripperologists?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                      From The Echo, Oct 1 (emphasis added to the interesting bits, with a tiny bit of editing for missing words) ...



                      Profiteering Socialists.

                      A man chased away at ~12:45, whom 'the public' regarded as the murderer.

                      A club secretary who just can't seem to remember the name of the man who did the chasing.

                      The body allegedly discovered 15 minutes before a constable arrived.

                      Something to see here, Ripperologists?
                      I have to say Im pleased you posted that now. Its the general feel you get from the text that means a lot...and you summarized some real issues within it well.

                      Im getting more and more convinced that Liz was discovered around 12:40-:45. One other element here is curious,...you asked about Lave, he says he was at the gates from around 12:30 until 12:40 then went back inside his cottage, ...but other than Eagle, who says he came through about 12:40, no-one is around. Not one smoker, not one person catching some air...even though the neighbors complained about "low men" talking and smoking in that passageway late at night after meetings.

                      It seems the stage was cleared by some statements, so that an event could be constructed by a story that would show the club as blameless in this murder. They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        I have to say Im pleased you posted that now. Its the general feel you get from the text that means a lot...and you summarized some real issues within it well.

                        Im getting more and more convinced that Liz was discovered around 12:40-:45. One other element here is curious,...you asked about Lave, he says he was at the gates from around 12:30 until 12:40 then went back inside his cottage, ...but other than Eagle, who says he came through about 12:40, no-one is around. Not one smoker, not one person catching some air...even though the neighbors complained about "low men" talking and smoking in that passageway late at night after meetings.

                        It seems the stage was cleared by some statements, so that an event could be constructed by a story that would show the club as blameless in this murder. They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?
                        That's a plausible interpretation, except that it doesn't account for one thing; why does Diemschutz say he arrives just after seeing the clock tower at exactly 1 am, when 12:45 would make much more sense?
                        If the club are going to construct a story, why risk having Louis' arrival time clash with other witness times?
                        Why must he say he arrives when he does, and not at a more realistic time?
                        Because we are meant to see things like this ...

                        Schwartz arrives back in Berner St at 12:45.
                        He is approaching #40 when he sees a man and woman talking.
                        Schwartz then sees the woman being manhandled.
                        Schwartz doesn't want to get involved and senses danger to himself, so crosses the road and shoots off.
                        His walking direction suggests he lives beyond #40, and his timing (after the meeting) suggests he has no association with the club.
                        Diemschutz arrives back in Berner St at 1 am.
                        He finds a dead women in the driveway.
                        This must be the woman Schwartz had seen being mistreated.
                        The murderer must have fled on hearing Louis arrive with pony and cart.
                        Furthermore, Schwartz' instincts seemed to have served him well.
                        Schwartz does the responsible thing and reports seeing the assault.
                        Diemschutz and club seem to have done the right things; they've gone for police, and cooperated when they arrive.
                        Of critical importance though, it appears that Schwartz and Diemschutz have no knowledge of each other.

                        Louis' incongruous late arrival time is necessary to create the illusion of the discovery of the body being several minutes after the assault is witnessed.
                        The 15 minute gap makes the murder time ambiguous, and Schwartz can't help with narrowing this down, because he concocts an apparently legitimate reason for fleeing the scene, which the murder adds much support to, in hindsight.
                        Without the 15 minute gap, it looks too much like Schwartz is lying about running away from a legitimate threat, and is actually running away because he is the culprit.
                        He would then have to explain why he is running away from a murder scene, and not just a domestic.

                        Schwartz and Diemschutz are working together.
                        This still leaves the club with a potentially huge problem; a murder on the grounds of the club.
                        No problem - Schwartz is going to sort that out, in about an hour's time.

                        Re Lave, this is the only quote I have come across:

                        I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street. So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions.
                        That to me reads like he is outside for 30 minutes, from 12:30.
                        Is there another quote of his, that tells a different story?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?


                          As opposed to yelling " a murder has been committed but obviously not by the same killer who has been terrorizing Whitechapel because this woman only has a single throat cut not the two cuts which we have come to expect."

                          One cut or two the results are the same. When the killer raised his knife I don't think the thing that was foremost on his mind was I need to be consistent with my cuts.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                            They even went for help yelling "another murder has been committed"....another?? A single throat cut indicates the same guy on the loose?


                            As opposed to yelling " a murder has been committed but obviously not by the same killer who has been terrorizing Whitechapel because this woman only has a single throat cut not the two cuts which we have come to expect."

                            One cut or two the results are the same. When the killer raised his knife I don't think the thing that was foremost on his mind was I need to be consistent with my cuts.

                            c.d.
                            Actually 1 cut and 2 are not the same cd, if they were Liz would have died quickly...not bled out. Also the double cuts served another purpose, they helped get much of the blood out of the body before he cuts into it and excises things,..something Strides killer was quite obviously not intent on doing.

                            And the "another murder" bit is to provide some proof they were intent on distancing themselves from this murder, by just blaming that killer at large for it without any real evidence to support it. Makes it interesting when you consider the GSG mentions Jews and "not be blamed".
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Considering all that the club members did in such a short amount of time they have to be considered the role model for all conspiracies. Even remembering under the circumstances to yell the correct thing. Now that is impressive.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                I don't think the statements about Schwartz's level of English conflict. The Star reads "The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand,...", and the first bit is just a colourful way of confirming the reporter could no more speak Hungarian than Schwartz could speak English (i.e. none at all), and this is bolstered by the statement that there was an interpreter available. I don't think that creates a conflict sufficient to suggest there was any deception involved.
                                For the writer of the article to be jovial on this point, while avoiding any ambiguity, supposes that the readership of the Star would 'just know' that the paper could not possibly have a reporter on the staff who could speak some Hungarian.
                                Why take the risk that some people could read him literally?
                                Why not just say 'he was run to earth in Backchurch Lane, and we spoke to him via an interpreter'?
                                By the way, why was Schwartz in Backchurch Lane? Doesn't he now live at 22 Ellen St?
                                Perhaps all this 22 something St is something we should be suspicious of - it seems one too many coincidences to me.

                                Regarding the interpreter, why was this person 'at hand', when Schwartz was 'run to earth'?
                                Did the Star reporter take the interpreter with him?
                                That would seem logical, as we know the reporter was just being colourful about his 'imperfect' knowledge of Hungarian.
                                On the other hand, could this 'at hand' interpreter be the same 'friend' that interpreted for Schwartz at Leman St station?
                                If the later, I wonder why the friend allowed Schwartz to tell a substantially different story, than the one he told the prior evening?

                                Also, if the interpreter was in either the first case, or both, a friend of Israel's, how can anything he says be taken seriously?
                                It is a completely dodgy situation!

                                Fleeing to Ellen Street makes a lot more sense than the railway arch, but whether that conflict is a result of the Star or the police making an error (of or via the interpreter) or Schwartz himself changing his story is unknown, and all three possibilities need to be considered.
                                A young man being chased away by a clay pipe wielding maniac, who is triggered into action by a man a few doors down apparently yelling an antisemitic slur at the young man who is walking by harmlessly, who both other men can clearly make out to be Jewish, in the darkness, immediately after the man who yells and who has just started talking to a woman standing in a gateway, throws her to the pavement - is a story of pure fantasy.

                                Why does anyone take Schwartz and his story, seriously?
                                It's because it provides the foundation for Louis' story about finding a dead woman in the driveway, 15 minutes later.
                                What people cannot or will not realise, is that providing a foundation to Louis' story, is the whole point of it!
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X