A Whip and a Prod

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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".

[Robert St Devil]

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.

Read it. I'd be careful using Fisherman's drawing. 1) because I think it's copywritten, and 2) are you claiming that the barrow was as wide as those red lines ie. 9ft or 280 cm wide? "The red lines represent a carriage's wheel span and path."

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Let's make the very reasonable assumption that 'going out for the day', means Schwartz leaves home some time before midday.
He "kindly" leaves the packing to his wife, which is no bad thing - it's possibly nothing more than two suitcases.

Don't you think, if that were the case though, that Mrs Schwartz would have been well and truly done and dusted, by 12:45 the next morning?
Furthermore, what the hell has Israel being doing all day and well into the night?
If not at work, has he been wondering the streets and drinking in pubs?
Did he go to the meeting at the IWMES that evening, and meet possibly dozens of other young Jews, and share in the camaraderie of the place?

Or is the guy, with evident marriage issues, also a bit of a loner?
Does he have some loose associations with club members, but otherwise exist as an "outsider", and feel like one too?

Why does Pipeman chase him, just because BS Man had called him Lipski?
It's just a 'domestic' that BS Man and the woman are involved in, after all, and the neighborhood is full of Jews.
What's the big deal, and why does he run so far, and past his (possibly old) address in Berner St, which is were he claims to be going in the first place?

In the Star version, why does Knifeman aggressively confront Tipsy Man with knife in hand, simply because TM has pushed a 'low woman'.
Again, why does Schwartz feel so terribly threatened by all this, even after having crossed the road, that he runs away as if his life depends on it?

Last but not least, how does Schwartz, in those brief seconds, on a dimly lit street, in which the movement and orientation of people, probably prevent him from getting a good frontal view of Stride's face, manage to successfully identify her at the mortuary?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Read it. I'd be careful using Fisherman's drawing. 1) because I think it's copywritten, and 2) are you claiming that the barrow was as wide as those red lines ie. 9ft or 280 cm wide? "The red lines represent a carriage's wheel span and path."

1) I reference the dissertation in the post, and credit both the graphic and some of the dimensions used in the post, to that article, and state the author's name multiple times. So far, I've not had any complaints.

2) Here are the relevant quotes:

Fisherman gives a lane width of 280cm.*

Fisherman approximates the carriage wheel span to be 200-210cm. Let's assume it to be 206cm (the even number makes for whole number division).

The cart is 97cm high, 98cm wide and 226cm long.


* I believe it was actually 300cm (10ft).

More work needs to be done in determining the exact dimensions of the whip used.

[Joshua Rogan]

Are you sure Schwartz couldn't communicate in English?

Yes.
The same Star interview says, in the same paragraph;
"He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter."

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So a few questions:

1. What explains the apparent contradiction? Could he really speak no English at all, or some, as the article initially suggests?
2. What evidence is required to determine, with a high degree of certainty, whether a particular person can or cannot speak a given language?
3. Why was the Star interview held at a police station? Is that where the Abberline interview occurred?
4. If the Star interview occurred right after the Abberline interview, why was Schwartz' story so different the second time?
5. Who was the friend, or at least the best guess as to the friend's identity?