Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Whip and a Prod

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

  • Here is some more from that thread by Maria...

    "
    In British censuses there's a Polish Israel Schwartz frequently changing addresses, located at 22 Samuel Street (a couple hundred yards from the murder site) at the date of the 1891 census with a wife and 2 kids, non English speaking. There's a marriage certificate for an Israel Schwartz in 1893 (which is too late, since he already was married in 1888, unless he re-married in 1893), and a naturalization for an Austrian (=Hungarian) Israel Schwartz in 1911. The anarchist Schwartz I'm frequently encountering in French police reports changes his first name often, but it's crystal clear it's the same guy, as the reports are from the same years (1902-1903) and he's frequenting the same clubs and fellow anarchists, participating in the exact same meetings. There are promising finds in English censuses for Schwartzes under the different first names this anarchist orator uses, but it's still a mess and needs to be sorted out.
    One additional problem is that the Paris Archives Nationales have LOST the one document which stated that the anarchist in question spoke both Polish and Hungarian. It appears that this file (along some other files) got misplaced during the process of the Archives Nationales making copies for me a few months ago (an incident which has happened before with other sources in Paris, I must add). I've gone through the relevant 2 boxes of reports thrice and was unable to re-locate the document in question. Very unfortunately I haven't shot pics of these early spy reports, as at the time my (shitty) camera was at the repairs shop.
    At any rate, since I've just found out that the anarchist Schwartz was acquainted with Rudolph Rocker and the AF, we have leverage to look in AF issues for the documented dates in which Schwartz spoke in 1902 and 1903. Thus I'd propose that we get the AF issues in question translated, and I'll discuss this with Lynn soon. It can also be that the ads in the AF from 1902-1903 are in English.
    I'm also going to see if there are any secret police reports about the Whitechapel anarchists in Germany"

    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 02-18-2020, 02:12 PM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Nice work!

      Thread link

      Why do you suppose mariab suggests that the anarchist Schwartz is connected to William Wess?
      Is mariab implying that Wess is also mentioned in the French police reports?

      Do you have any idea if the 1902-03 period issues of Arbeter Fraint have now been obtained?
      Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 02-19-2020, 01:30 AM.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Hi Jeff, what is translated for Schwartz seems to indicate his belief the call wasn't directed at him, without knowing exactly what he said that was translated, we cant know exactly what his intentions were. And in this scenario, a anti-Semitic slur towards an immigrant jew who happens to come across a burly man assaulting a woman seems far more probable. And reasonable. With knowing Pipemans ethnicity of course. In the story Pipeman chases Israel off, so how does that fit with Pipeman being subjected to an anti Semitic slur...which Lipski certainly was. Abberlines understanding of that fact is far more critical than Israel's translated version, its local knowledge that can be used here.

        Why would BSM yell an anti-Semitic slur at all, and why wouldn't that be directed at the only known to be immigrant jew in the immediate area? The answer is simple...he only used the phrase due to his becoming aware that an immigrant jew was now watching what he was doing. Which in turn places someone assaulting the soon to be murder victim off the property within minutes of her murder, and provides the investigation with a gentile assailant. Intending to take any possible heat for the crime off the immigrant jews still at the club. The story suggests that perhaps if Israel hadn't wandered by the assault he witnesses it may have become a murder out on the street, and that BSM only used the passageway to get away from prying eyes.

        The real truth is in the numbers here. 4 people corroborate each other on time and circumstances, and they directly conflict with Israel's story...which no-one saw or heard take place.
        Abberline questioned Schwartz closely on the point, and in the end, Schwartz was no longer able to say for sure who the shout was directed to. If it was a simple matter of a single sentence that might have been mistranslated, you might have an out, but given it was a point of focus of their conversation, there is no doubt. Schwartz's belief was originally the shout was directed at Pipeman, though after being pressed by Abberline he retreated his position slightly, only to the point he couldn't be sure anymore. Putting Schwartz in on the conspiracy with a concocted story causes the whole theory to implode upon itself amid the self contradiction it creates. Patching it up with more theoretical statements is just trying to stop a building collapsing with cellotape applied with a sledgehammer - it does more harm than good.

        To be clear, all I'm saying is that Schwartz cannot be part of the conspiracy. I'm not saying he's accurate, or reliable, or anything else. Also, a conspiracy could still exist, just not one that includes Schwartz.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Abberline questioned Schwartz closely on the point, and in the end, Schwartz was no longer able to say for sure who the shout was directed to. If it was a simple matter of a single sentence that might have been mistranslated, you might have an out, but given it was a point of focus of their conversation, there is no doubt. Schwartz's belief was originally the shout was directed at Pipeman, though after being pressed by Abberline he retreated his position slightly, only to the point he couldn't be sure anymore.
          So with repeated questioning, Abberline managed to press Schwartz into a position other than what Schwartz had held when the interview commenced.

          Abberline's motivation seems clear; by transferring the intended direction of the shout from a Jew to a Gentile, Scotland Yard could then make the apparently reasonable supposition that the Gentile's name was Lipski, and then commence a large-scale hunt for a man of that name, using Schwartz' description of Pipeman.

          So things worked out well for both men - Schwartz was able to avoid becoming a suspect, and Abberline's men could subsequently be seen to be 'doing something'.

          However, it must be considered at least a possibility that Abberline interfered with a witness statement, for political reasons, and got away it.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Obviously Jeff I still disagree with your discounting Israel as a planted story, in the interests of the club...which he may have had, its a perfect story to present to the authorities. The ones that believed Anarchists met there and discussed plans and plots. Among neighbours who referred to many that hung around after meetings had completed, in that same passageway, as "low men". Its odd that there wasn't even one in there at the time of the incident, having a breath of air, a smoke, a chat...not one. And yet Eagle couldnt be sure if a dead woman was there when he passed. Hmm.

            I think its imperative to remember what that word means, Anarchist. Its not a benign word. Its volatile. Its aggressive. It implies revolution. That's how these men were thought of before any murder took place in their passageway. To imagine they were oblivious to that when a discovery of a dying woman is found on their property isn't prudent. They were of course aware of how this could appear for them. Even without any responsibility for it by club meeting attendees. Lets not forget the rising anti-Semitic tide in that area as a result of decades of inflow from Europe, the political climate with concurrent hearings looking into Parliamentary pro Self Rule factions sanctioning assassinations. The volume of desperately poor and disenfranchised in that area. This was a rough ghetto like environment, and to survive, you might have to fudge a story to a copper. Not such a huge deal as is being made out. These men beat police with sticks in that yard in less than a year. Issac and Louis are arrested. Among others. Lets be clear about the club, then a story to protect it might be more palatable.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              I think its imperative to remember what that word means, Anarchist. Its not a benign word. Its volatile. Its aggressive. It implies revolution.
              The word philanthropist means; a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.

              Thomas Barnado was a philanthropist. He met Liz Stride a few days before her death.
              This is what Wikipedia says about the controversies surrounding Barnado's philanthropy:

              There was controversy early on with Barnardo's work. Specifically, he was accused of kidnapping children without parents' permission and of falsifying photographs of children to make the distinction between the period before they were rescued by Barnardo's and afterwards seem more dramatic. He openly confessed to the former of these charges, describing it as 'philanthropic abduction' and basing his defence on the idea that the end justified the means. In total, he was taken to court on 88 occasions, usually on the charge of kidnapping. However, being a charismatic speaker and popular figure, he rode through these scandals unscathed. Other charges brought against him included presenting staged images of children for Barnardo's 'before and after' cards and neglecting basic hygiene for the children under his care.

              Barnardo's was implicated in the scandal of forced child migration, in which children from poor social backgrounds were taken to the former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa) by churches and charities, without their parents' consent and even under false claims of death. Although this was a legal scheme, favoured by Government and society, in many cases the children suffered harsh living conditions and many also suffered physical and, in some cases, sexual abuse. This practice went on until the 1970s. This merited a public apology by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2010.
              If the idea that 'the end justifies the means' could provide the rationalization for a philanthropist to kidnap children and become involved with forced child migration, what could the same idea be capable of in the minds of a group of Anarchists?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Obviously Jeff I still disagree with your discounting Israel as a planted story, in the interests of the club...which he may have had, its a perfect story to present to the authorities. The ones that believed Anarchists met there and discussed plans and plots. Among neighbours who referred to many that hung around after meetings had completed, in that same passageway, as "low men". Its odd that there wasn't even one in there at the time of the incident, having a breath of air, a smoke, a chat...not one. And yet Eagle couldnt be sure if a dead woman was there when he passed. Hmm.

                I think its imperative to remember what that word means, Anarchist. Its not a benign word. Its volatile. Its aggressive. It implies revolution. That's how these men were thought of before any murder took place in their passageway. To imagine they were oblivious to that when a discovery of a dying woman is found on their property isn't prudent. They were of course aware of how this could appear for them. Even without any responsibility for it by club meeting attendees. Lets not forget the rising anti-Semitic tide in that area as a result of decades of inflow from Europe, the political climate with concurrent hearings looking into Parliamentary pro Self Rule factions sanctioning assassinations. The volume of desperately poor and disenfranchised in that area. This was a rough ghetto like environment, and to survive, you might have to fudge a story to a copper. Not such a huge deal as is being made out. These men beat police with sticks in that yard in less than a year. Issac and Louis are arrested. Among others. Lets be clear about the club, then a story to protect it might be more palatable.
                Then your theory is that in order to misdirect the police away from a Jewish offender they came up with a story implicating a Jewish offender (as that is what Schwartz's story was, as he told it). And that makes the theory irrational, and disproves it.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  So with repeated questioning, Abberline managed to press Schwartz into a position other than what Schwartz had held when the interview commenced.

                  Abberline's motivation seems clear; by transferring the intended direction of the shout from a Jew to a Gentile, Scotland Yard could then make the apparently reasonable supposition that the Gentile's name was Lipski, and then commence a large-scale hunt for a man of that name, using Schwartz' description of Pipeman.

                  So things worked out well for both men - Schwartz was able to avoid becoming a suspect, and Abberline's men could subsequently be seen to be 'doing something'.

                  However, it must be considered at least a possibility that Abberline interfered with a witness statement, for political reasons, and got away it.
                  Careful questioning of witnesses is not interfering with them, it's making sure you understand what they are saying and finding out how confident they are in the information they provide. It's called doing good police work, for short.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • >> I think its imperative to remember what that word means, Anarchist. Its not a benign word. Its volatile. Its aggressive. It implies revolution.<<

                    The above sentence suggests you don't understand what an "Anarchist is" is. For example, Trump's policies fit the description of a right wing Anarchism (yes, there is such a thing).



                    >>That's how these men were thought of before any murder took place in their passageway. <<

                    Since Eagle chaired a discussion about Jews and Socialism, it should be assumed he, and those attending, were either Socialists or at the very least interested in Socialism. The fact that he "chaired" a discussion means he could not be an Anarchist, as such terms and concepts were not approved of by Anarchists.

                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • But think of the idea that is being floated here. Are we to believe that if the police really disliked and distrusted the club prior to the murders that the use of the term "Lipski" would absolve the club of any wrongdoing in the minds of the police and cause them to look elsewhere?


                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Careful questioning of witnesses is not interfering with them, it's making sure you understand what they are saying and finding out how confident they are in the information they provide. It's called doing good police work, for short.

                        - Jeff
                        This is how you described the same thing, the first time:

                        ... after being pressed by Abberline he retreated his position slightly, only to the point he couldn't be sure anymore.
                        To press a witness until he changes his position, is very different from carefully questioning said witness on their position.
                        It crosses the line from good police work, into corruption.

                        Abberline was under immense pressure.
                        Clearly he wanted a Schwartz to change his story, and partially succeeded.
                        Schwartz eventually took the path of least resistance, and Abberline took the path of greatest political benefit to himself.

                        Now if only Abberline had asked Schwartz to demonstrate, to the best of his ability, a woman screaming three times, but not very loudly, and it might have begun to occur to Abberline, who he had in his presence.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          This is how you described the same thing, the first time:



                          To press a witness until he changes his position, is very different from carefully questioning said witness on their position.
                          It crosses the line from good police work, into corruption.

                          Abberline was under immense pressure.
                          Clearly he wanted a Schwartz to change his story, and partially succeeded.
                          Schwartz eventually took the path of least resistance, and Abberline took the path of greatest political benefit to himself.

                          Now if only Abberline had asked Schwartz to demonstrate, to the best of his ability, a woman screaming three times, but not very loudly, and it might have begun to occur to Abberline, who he had in his presence.
                          Ah, fair enough, the initial descriptive I used was a poor choice.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >> I think its imperative to remember what that word means, Anarchist. Its not a benign word. Its volatile. Its aggressive. It implies revolution.<<

                            The above sentence suggests you don't understand what an "Anarchist is" is. For example, Trump's policies fit the description of a right wing Anarchism (yes, there is such a thing).



                            >>That's how these men were thought of before any murder took place in their passageway. <<

                            Since Eagle chaired a discussion about Jews and Socialism, it should be assumed he, and those attending, were either Socialists or at the very least interested in Socialism. The fact that he "chaired" a discussion means he could not be an Anarchist, as such terms and concepts were not approved of by Anarchists.
                            The CB Wiki page on the club, gives a some insight into the club's politics.
                            The quote on that page is from JH Mackay's work, Die Anarchisten.
                            The Wikipedia page on that work, notes that it was translated into Yiddish and published in London, by Arbeter Fraynd.
                            Apparently there is such a thing as left-wing Anarchism.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • To press a witness until he changes his position, is very different from carefully questioning said witness on their position.
                              It crosses the line from good police work, into corruption.

                              Abberline was under immense pressure.
                              Clearly he wanted a Schwartz to change his story, and partially succeeded.
                              Schwartz eventually took the path of least resistance, and Abberline took the path of greatest political benefit to himself.


                              It seems a real leap to arrive at that conclusion. How do we know how Schwartz came across when giving his testimony. Could it be that he appeared uncertain of various details? Wouldn't it have been Abberline's role to make sure that Schwartz was clear and that he (Abberline) understood him? I don't consider that pressuring a witness.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • In 1888 the Berner Street club was a maelstrom of two competing factions, the Socialists and the Anarchists. A few years later the Anarchists ( the so called Knights of Liberty) eventually won out with the arrival of the likes of Rudolf Rocker and dedicated themselves to Anarchism.

                                Interesting stuff, but irrelevant during Mrs Stride's murder, as the we know from the debate upstairs the Socialists held sway that particular night.
                                Last edited by drstrange169; 02-20-2020, 08:22 AM.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X