A Whip and a Prod

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How man independent witnesses gave the same story for the time of 12:40-12:45? 4

As 3 of the 4 are club members, in what sense are these 3 witnesses, independent?

In this case its already clear, dont muddy the waters with Jack,...its cut and dry if you look at it with unbiased eyes.

You keep telling us how much the murder threatened both the club's viability, and members security, and how they worked out a response to the situation, right after the body is found.
But what this fails to consider however, is that nothing takes the pressure off the club, as does the subsequent murder, yet you seem to regard this as just a fortunate coincidence.
Your theory seems more 'single event', than 'double event'.

[Michael W Richards]

The strongest objections to the idea that the Club had reasons to and the opportunity to adjust the storyline in their favor is really about the time and place when this murder occurs. Surely common sense and a need to dispel any unwanted attentions could create a need, the insurmountable evidence that the story was fudged in at least its timings by virtue of 4 independent witnesses who all give the same account and times gives us actual evidence of the manipulation of the story. And it points directly at Louis, well... primarily. So its really about whether its possible that a murder, unconnected to a single killer and a perceived series of gruesome murders, could have occurred in that passageway during that lunatic "spree" and whether or not the senior club staffers would seek to portray it as unconnected to them. Very plausible scenarios. And with evidence suggesting that, in the stated times given by Louis, his story was created not just reported or recalled.

What was done? A choke by scarf and a single cut.
What evidence suggests further intentions? None. Victim is untouched after the single cut.
What was the killer seeking ultimately? To mortally wound or kill Liz.
How man independent witnesses gave the same story for the time of 12:40-12:45? 4
How many secondary accounts validate the stories given by club staff? None.

In this case its already clear, dont muddy the waters with Jack,...its cut and dry if you look at it with unbiased eyes.

[JeffHamm]

Schwartz understood 'Lipski' to be a derogatory term for a Jew.

There is nothing to indicate he knew this at all.

As he is Jewish, and Pipeman appears not to be, what other interpretation could make sense, other than 'Lipski' being directed at Schwartz?

given Schwartz's original belief Lipski was directed at Pipeman, clearly Schwartz did not share your interpretation.

Regardless, after a bit of pressure from Abberline, and a bit of creative license from Scotland Yard, Pipeman became Mr Lipski.

you are using my previous description (that Abberline pressed him on this) as if I was there. I believe Abberline's words were along the lines that he questioned him closely on this point, to which Schwart then admitted he couldn't be sure it was directed at Pipeman. Abberline describes properly investigating an important point of fact, my description was inaccurate and clumsy for not considering the implications. While I'm flattered you hold my choice of words to be worth building up, given that I accept my choice was inaccurate, it's probably best not to further build upon my mistake.

Then they went scouting the neighborhood for this Mr Lipski.
Totally farcical.

So, the police are given testimony by a potential eye witness, in which he gives his opinion that the name Lipski was directed to a possible accomplice, and you think it is farcical that the police should bother to follow this up? While they may have held the opinion that Lipski was an insult directed at Schwartz, in the end, Schwartz's claim was that it was directed at pipeman, and so the police had to follow it up or be negligent.

Pejorative descriptions of the police doing what amounts to a good job are not strengthening to your overall set of hypotheses.

I just came across the section of Abberline's report, regarding Hutchinson and his bizarrely detailed eye-witness description.



Now Hutchinson may well have seen a man he regarded as behaving suspiciously, but Abberline seems to have accepted everything he said, at face value.

This is 'star witness' Joseph Lawende, talking to Henry Smith:



That didn't stop them using Lawende as a suspect identifier, until possibly as late as 1895!

The more I read about the Scotland Yard characters involved with the case, the more I can see how badly outclassed they were.
The Socialists were very smart young men, and in the brains department they had an edge over the investigators.

While I have no doubt the men in the Socialist club were intelligent, I see no evidence they "had an edge over the investigators" because I see no evidence they were connected to the investigation in any way other than to provide witness statements. The notion they were in some sort of cat-and-mouse game is short on evidential support.

- Jeff

[DJA]

It was an incident that reverberated around the world.
Day of Atonement Balls became quite popular., for instance in the US of A.
IWMC was an important part of the trade movement.

Here in Oz we have a pale imitation and a right wing government led by a clap happy PM that preys on the unfortunate through illegal schemes like robodebt.
We gonna burn in Hell,I tell ya!

[drstrange169]

>>In fact IWMC socialists were actually attacked by religious zealots who were joined by police and were prosecuted for defending themselves.<<

Correct! A Crowd estimated at well over 200 hundred, throwing rocks and trying to invade the club. Members of the crowd tried to claim Loius and Co attacked them, but all charges were dropped through lack of evidence.

What is most interesting about the PC Frost incident is that he was a PC not a detective yet he was in plain clothes, the police involvement is very suspious. One thing we can say about the incident is that the club members were not acting like militants.

[DJA]

Thanks,much appreciated.

In both cases the members were actually defending themselves.

[Michael W Richards]

14 Star, September 14, 1888. 'Freethinking Jews and the Black Fast. The Workers' Friend, the Hebrew Socialist paper, of this week, announces that as a protest against the Jewish religion and the Day of Atonement, the Jewish Socialists and Freethinkers have organised a banquet for tomorrow, which will take place at the International Working Men's Club, 40, Berner street, Commercial road. Speeches will be delivered in various languages. The announcement has caused much excitement amongst the orthodox Jews, and it is rumored that a disturbance may take place at the banquet. If so, the members of the International Working Men's Club state that they are prepared, and the aid of the police will not be called in to assist in quelling it. This banquet is unprecedented in Jewish history.'

Star, September 17, 1888.
'A Feast on a Fast Leads to a Riot. While the orthodox Jews of the East end were on Saturday celebrating the Day of Atonement by fasting and prayer, the Socialist and Freethinking Hebrews held a banquet at the International Working Men's Club, Berner street, where speeches were made pointing out that the miseries and degradation of the people were not due to any Divine power, but that they were caused by the capitalists, who monopolised all the means of production and paid starvation wages. The orthodox Jews took great umbrage at this banquet, and assembled in Berner street in great numbers. The windows of the club were smashed, and when three of the men in the club went out to secure the man who did the damage, they were very roughly handled, till about a hundred of their colleagues went to their assistance. The police subsequently dispersed the mob, and guarded the club till a late hour.'


In fact IWMC socialists were actually attacked by religious zealots who were joined by police and were prosecuted for defending themselves.

The above quotes are from a 1888 event? The event I mentioned is this, in 1889..."Lewis Diemschitz [Louis Diemschutz], 27, and Isaac Kozebrodski, 19, surrendered to their bail to answer an indictment for making a riot and rout, and for assaulting various persons. A third man, Samuel Friedman, who was indicted with the defendants did not surrender to his bail when called. Mr. Gill and Mr. Partridge prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; and Mr. W. M. Thompson represented the defendants. The alleged disturbance occurred on March 16, on which day there had been a procession of the Jewish unemployed in the East-end. After the dispersal of the procession, many of those composing it returned to the International Workmen's Club, Berner-street, Commercial-road, E., of which they were members, and from which the procession had started. A crowd of some 200 or 300 persons, who had been following the procession, assembled outside the club, and began to annoy those inside by throwing stones, hooting, and knocking at the door. The defendant Diemschitz, steward of the club, sent for the police, but when they arrived those inside the club assumed the defensive, and, rushing out in a body, attacked the crowd with broom sticks, walking sticks, and umbrellas. It was stated that the defendants bore a prominent part in the fight, and that Diemschitz struck and kicked plain clothes constable Frost, who interfered. Frost attempted to arrest Diemschitz, but was dragged into the club, where he was beaten and kicked. On the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Gill abandoned the count for riot. A number of witnesses were called for the defence, who gave evidence to the effect that the police had made an entirely unprovoked attack on the defendants and their companions. The jury found the defendants Guilty of assaulting two constables, but Acquitted them on the other counts. The Chairman said they had greatly aggravated their offence by the defence they had set up. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on his liberation to be bound over and to find sureties to keep the peace for 12 months. Kosebrodski was sentenced to pay a fine of £4, or to be imprisoned for one month.

From The Times April 26th 1889.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Schwartz understood 'Lipski' to be a derogatory term for a Jew.
As he is Jewish, and Pipeman appears not to be, what other interpretation could make sense, other than 'Lipski' being directed at Schwartz?
Regardless, after a bit of pressure from Abberline, and a bit of creative license from Scotland Yard, Pipeman became Mr Lipski.
Then they went scouting the neighborhood for this Mr Lipski.
Totally farcical.

I just came across the section of Abberline's report, regarding Hutchinson and his bizarrely detailed eye-witness description.

An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings, and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

Now Hutchinson may well have seen a man he regarded as behaving suspiciously, but Abberline seems to have accepted everything he said, at face value.

This is 'star witness' Joseph Lawende, talking to Henry Smith:

Smith: You will easily recognize him, then?
Lawende: Oh no! I only had a short look at him.

That didn't stop them using Lawende as a suspect identifier, until possibly as late as 1895!

The more I read about the Scotland Yard characters involved with the case, the more I can see how badly outclassed they were.
The Socialists were very smart young men, and in the brains department they had an edge over the investigators.

[DJA]

14 Star, September 14, 1888. 'Freethinking Jews and the Black Fast. The Workers' Friend, the Hebrew Socialist paper, of this week, announces that as a protest against the Jewish religion and the Day of Atonement, the Jewish Socialists and Freethinkers have organised a banquet for tomorrow, which will take place at the International Working Men's Club, 40, Berner street, Commercial road. Speeches will be delivered in various languages. The announcement has caused much excitement amongst the orthodox Jews, and it is rumored that a disturbance may take place at the banquet. If so, the members of the International Working Men's Club state that they are prepared, and the aid of the police will not be called in to assist in quelling it. This banquet is unprecedented in Jewish history.'

Star, September 17, 1888.
'A Feast on a Fast Leads to a Riot. While the orthodox Jews of the East end were on Saturday celebrating the Day of Atonement by fasting and prayer, the Socialist and Freethinking Hebrews held a banquet at the International Working Men's Club, Berner street, where speeches were made pointing out that the miseries and degradation of the people were not due to any Divine power, but that they were caused by the capitalists, who monopolised all the means of production and paid starvation wages. The orthodox Jews took great umbrage at this banquet, and assembled in Berner street in great numbers. The windows of the club were smashed, and when three of the men in the club went out to secure the man who did the damage, they were very roughly handled, till about a hundred of their colleagues went to their assistance. The police subsequently dispersed the mob, and guarded the club till a late hour.'


In fact IWMC socialists were actually attacked by religious zealots who were joined by police and were prosecuted for defending themselves.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, the meeting topic was "Why Jews should be Socialists", and its one that Eagle had used on previous occasions there. William Morris was originally scheduled to speak that night at the club, and he was unabashedly Socialist vs Anarchist. I believe a recently discovered letter from him to Wess speaks to that very point, (revealed on a 2019 espisode of Antiques Roadshow in fact, although it might have been a relay of an earlier date),.. when Morris suggests that the Anarchist tone of the Berner St Club made him hesitant to be representative of it. Being a Socialist does not require activism, Anarchists seek to force their beliefs upon their environment. The club was viewed as an Anarchist club at the very same time as Strides murder, perhaps an ongoing tide and not fully realized, but the law enforcement in the area categorized it as such in the press during this investigation nonetheless. The Arbeter Fraint skirts around those competing ideals during that period too, Lynn Cates had a few issues translated a while back and they were quite revealing. Seems to me Socialists require Anarchists to some extent, a fringe element that is actively seeking to create a new Socialist state. The issue immediately following this murder is interesting too. Cant recall what folder here that it would be in at the moment.

And supporting a militant wave in that club is the fact that its steward and other members are arrested that next spring/summer for attacking police with clubs in that same yard.

[drstrange169]

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>> 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.

[JeffHamm]

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.