A Whip and a Prod

[JeffHamm]

Schwartz said nothing that could be understood by himself, he had a translator. Schwartzs story has Pipeman shouting supposedly as BSM. Read what I posted. Israel is the "intruder", Pipeman calls to BSM, and indicates that a Lipski is watching. Simple enough to me, and since Lipski was a known slur, fits to a T.

"

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."

I suspect Schwartz understood everything he said, the fact a translator was required for Abberline to understand him is neither her nor there with that respect. I believe in the version told to Abberline it is BS who shouts Lipski, while the star has it the other way round (and changes the pipe to a knife). The fact Abberline's interpretation of Schwartz's testimony, which changes the story Schwartz told based upon assuming Schwartz misunderstood who was being shouted at, fits the conspiracy again means it must be Abberline who is part of the conspiracy because the version that "fits" is Abberline's, not Schwartz's.

The logic that connects Schwartz to the conspiracy creates paradoxes and contradictions, therefore it refutes itself. Schwartz, therefore, cannot be part of the conspiracy - the logic in the theory disproves his involvement.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

The baker shop's clock was at 70 Berner Street.
Louis's cart did not pass Mortimer's residence.

Although the Telegraph reported Louis as saying "I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street", the Daily News says "I noticed the time at a tobacco shop in the Commercial-road", with the Morning Advertiser even going as far as saying "I noticed the time at Harris's tobacco shop at the corner of Commercial-road and Berner-street"

Harris' shop was at 84 on the NE corner. There was another tobacco shop at no.80, next door to the shop on the NW corner. So therefore, if correct, Louis did indeed pass Fanny at no.36 before entering the club gateway. It seems possible to me that the confusion may have arisen if Louis had actually said "'baccy shop" rather than "baker's shop".

Schwartz was moving from 55 Ellen Street.

According to his Star interview, he was moving from Berner St to Backchurch Lane;

"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."

[Michael W Richards]

Think it was BS Man with the carroty moustache.
Nonetheless ...... MYTH: JEWS HAVE MORE RED HAIR THAN THE IRISH
FALSE

The association of Jews with red hair has a long history, dating back even to the Bible, in which rugged Esau and the harp-playing warrior king David were both believed to be redheads. Some more sinister Jews, too, were thought to be “gingers”: Judas and Shylock are often depicted with flaming locks. In fact, the link has become so widespread in popular culture that some believe there are more auburn-haired Jews than there are Irish, those most famous redheads. Not so, says Abel. “Scotland and Ireland have the highest proportion of people with red hair,” he says. The myth may be the result of confounded expectations: “There’s a higher percentage of Jews with red hair than you might expect from the fact that they came from the Middle East and most people in the Middle East have dark hair,” says Abel, though the number appears to be no higher than the approximately four percent of the world’s population who are endowed with red tresses.

There are Italians with Blue Eyes too. Though when someone says to me they saw an Italian today, blue eyes wouldn't be my first guess.

[Michael W Richards]

You are avoiding the fact that Isreal Schwartz's story, if concocted by a conspiracy whose goal is to divert attention away from a Jewish offender would either have had Schwartz specifically state they called him Lipski (playing off the known use of it as antisemitic) or the warning shout would have been in English (which means something he wouldn't understand). The fact that Schwartz reports Lipski as if it is pipeman's name means Schwartz's story was not authored by a conspiracy designed to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore the club. His story, as he tells it (not how others interpret it), does not fit with the hypothesized conspiracy. There's no getting around it, and there's nothing to gain by focusing on what others reinterpret Schwartz's statement to possibly mean that might fit the conspiracy because that is not what Schwartz testified, it's what others think might have happened that Schwartz misinterpreted. That means Schwartz's testimony is more likely to be of a genuine encounter, that he misinterpreted but reported as he understood it to be, and it is not part of a fabricated story originating from a club conspiracy.

- Jeff

Schwartz said nothing that could be understood by himself, he had a translator. Schwartzs story has Pipeman shouting supposedly as BSM. Read what I posted. Israel is the "intruder", Pipeman calls to BSM, and indicates that a Lipski is watching. Simple enough to me, and since Lipski was a known slur, fits to a T.

"

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."

[JeffHamm]

Ok, you've refused to accept that these are interpretations made about statements, they aren't historical records of what transpired.

This is from the Star Oct 1st...

"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. 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, 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. 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. 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."

Israel said the the second man rushed out and shouted some sort of warning to the man with Liz, which again, is interpreted. It could well be that the call Lipski is to tell BSM that Israel is watching.

Its, again, also what Abberline believed. The term was used derogatorily. Since Pipeman has carroty mustache, its unlikely a call to a Jewish co-conspirator. Which makes Pipeman, and BSM gentiles. We already know Israel of theatrical appearance must have looked pretty obviously jewish.

'

That account is quite different from other accounts (knife, not pipe, for example). But regardless, it's the closing bit returning to what others think Schwartz meant that doesn't matter. That is avoiding the fact that Isreal Schwartz's story, if concocted by a conspiracy whose goal is to divert attention away from a Jewish offender would either have had Schwartz specifically state they called him Lipski (playing off the known use of it as antisemitic) or the warning shout would have been in English (which means something he wouldn't understand), or something like that, something that makes it clear the offenders are not Jewish. The fact that Schwartz reports Lipski as if it is pipeman's name, and he is unable to verify to Abberline who Lipski was shouted at (through Abberline's questioning, not through his own spontaneous statement) means Schwartz's story was not authored by a conspiracy designed to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender, and therefore the club. His story, as he tells it (not how others interpret it), does not fit with the hypothesized conspiracy. There's no getting around it, and there's nothing to gain by focusing on what others reinterpret Schwartz's statement to possibly mean that might fit the conspiracy because that is not what Schwartz testified, it's what others think might have happened that Schwartz misinterpreted. That means Schwartz's testimony is more likely to be of a genuine encounter, that he misinterpreted but reported as he understood it to be, and it is not part of a fabricated story originating from a club conspiracy.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Think it was BS Man with the carroty moustache.
Nonetheless ...... MYTH: JEWS HAVE MORE RED HAIR THAN THE IRISH
FALSE

The association of Jews with red hair has a long history, dating back even to the Bible, in which rugged Esau and the harp-playing warrior king David were both believed to be redheads. Some more sinister Jews, too, were thought to be “gingers”: Judas and Shylock are often depicted with flaming locks. In fact, the link has become so widespread in popular culture that some believe there are more auburn-haired Jews than there are Irish, those most famous redheads. Not so, says Abel. “Scotland and Ireland have the highest proportion of people with red hair,” he says. The myth may be the result of confounded expectations: “There’s a higher percentage of Jews with red hair than you might expect from the fact that they came from the Middle East and most people in the Middle East have dark hair,” says Abel, though the number appears to be no higher than the approximately four percent of the world’s population who are endowed with red tresses.

[Michael W Richards]

Crikey,there's so much BS posted here that it's difficult to know where to start.

Fanny Mortimer had resided at 36 Berner Street for over 17 years.
IWEC was at 40 Berner Street.
The baker shop's clock was at 70 Berner Street.
Louis's cart did not pass Mortimer's residence.

Schwartz was moving from 55 Ellen Street.

Not aware the Schwartz was a known associate of Wess.

Yet she heard a cart and horse while inside after 1am, and she didn't see or hear anything on the streets coming from either direction from 12:50 to1am. Schwartz was connected with Wess from a visit to Paris a few years back, this was our fine researchers Debra's find, so I dont claim to know the specifics.

Where does the Ellen Street verification come from I wonder. Not questioning you have sources for that, I don't believe he provided any proof of that though.

[DJA]

Crikey,there's so much BS posted here that it's difficult to know where to start.

Fanny Mortimer had resided at 36 Berner Street for over 17 years.
IWEC was at 40 Berner Street.
The baker shop's clock was at 70 Berner Street.
Louis's cart did not pass Mortimer's residence.

Schwartz was moving from 55 Ellen Street.

Not aware the Schwartz was a known associate of Wess.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, you've refused to accept that these are interpretations made about statements, they aren't historical records of what transpired.

This is from the Star Oct 1st...

"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. 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, 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. 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. 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."

Israel said the the second man rushed out and shouted some sort of warning to the man with Liz, which again, is interpreted. It could well be that the call Lipski is to tell BSM that Israel is watching.

Its, again, also what Abberline believed. The term was used derogatorily. Since Pipeman has carroty mustache, its unlikely a call to a Jewish co-conspirator. Which makes Pipeman, and BSM gentiles. We already know Israel of theatrical appearance must have looked pretty obviously jewish.

'

[JeffHamm]

The paradoxes exist Jeff because we are talking about the opinions of certain people, their perspectives can be extremely different, and often subjective. The harder evidence here....Schwartz being a known associate of Wess's, Schwartz's unknown residence the day before, the delay in coming forward, the likelihood that Wess translated for him...as he apparently did for Goldstein on Tuesday night, the fact that Fanny Mortimer could hear footsteps outside while in her home, and even if not at the door, and did not hear 3 sets of them running nor a slur called across the street, the fact that Fanny Mortimers statement that she was at her door from 12:50 until 1am is corroborated, and that she did not see or hear any cart arriving at "precisely 1am" as was claimed, the fact that the only people seen by anyone in the area from 12:35 until Spooner sees the Jews running for help..(he believed that to be around 12:40-12:45),...was the young couple, the fact that 3 other witnesses that came from inside the club believed they were also there around 12:45 by the dying woman, the fact that Blackwell estimated the earliest cut time from 12:46-12:56, the fact that the club paid staff all said they saw no-one at the times they recorded their close proximity to the murder scene...even though they state they were there at the very same times, the fact that Isaac K's statement taken that night indicated that he was sent alone to get help, something no other club staffer even mentioned, the fact that Strides actual murder might have taken 2 seconds which makes it possible to have taken place right around the time 4 witnesses said they were there...

I could cite lots of things one can use in lieu of possibly tainted opinion to formulate a most probable landscape. And that is for me, that Liz Stride was off the street shortly after 12:35, likely in the passageway to a private club,...which is why Fanny at her off and on times at her door didn't see her,... and that an argument turned deadly in 2 seconds which resulted in a dying woman just inside the gates. The members left at the club heard something was going on, rushed down to see, and among the senior members a quick assessment of her was made and a discussion about what they needed to do took place. Someone not needed there, a junior member, was sent to look for help. Goldstein has empty cigarette cartons destined for the cigarette makers still awake in the cottages in the passageway, turns his head to see whats going on at the gates, and is waved to move on by some members, which he does. Louis and Eagle leave for help at the time they say they did.

Much of the above, such as Fanny's testimony, etc, has nothing to do with whether or not Schwartz was part of a club conspiracy to direct attention away from a Jewish offender. As I've stated a few times, that is the only question I'm addressing with regards to Schwartz's statement - and his statement, as he gives it, indicates he is not part of any such alleged conspiracy. His lack of involvement in that conspiracy does not preclude there still being one, it only precludes him being part of it and therefore precludes his testimony being used to support its existence. Evaluation of the conspiracy hypothesis, and the other matters you mention, require evaluation of the other evidence available as they are different questions/issues.

The paradoxes exist because what Schwartz stated directly contradicts the hypothesized goals of the conspiracy of which he's suggested to be a member - the paradoxes, therefore, exist within the logic of the argument that ties the conspiracy to being the source of his testimony rather than Schwartz's actual experience being the source of the information. The latter allows for him to be mistaken through misinterpreting what he experienced, the former does not - a concocted story would be one that is suitable to purpose as given, not one that does the opposite. Just because others reinterpret Schwartz to make it suitable to the conspiracy doesn't mean his testimony, as given, was originally suitable to the conspiracy. And since it isn't/wasn't, that means the conspiracy cannot be the source of his original statement.

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

After all that kissing?

So what do you think happened if you assume that Diemschutz was lying?

Tristan

[Michael W Richards]

You're still focusing on what Abberline changed Schwartz's testimony to, so unless you're arguing Abberline was part of the conspiracy, Abberline's view is irrelevant for this context. All that is relevant is that Schwartz's original story because that is the story the conspiracy is supposed to have authored - and that story is that pipeman is Lipski, making pipeman a Jewish offender and by implication BS a Jewish offender. Everything after that (changing what Schwartz's story was originally into "Lipski as an insult directed as Schwartz himself") is not the conspiracy's story but a story authored by others.

The story that fits the conspiracy, therefore, is the one authored by Abberline, not the one authored by Schwartz. So Schwartz is not part of the conspiracy, but as you focus on Abberline's version, you appear to be arguing that Abberline is part of the conspiracy. And if he was, then Abberline would have ensured the club was avoided anyway, and so the whole need for the conspiracy disoloves since the police are already in on it. In other words, no matter how you slice it, trying to tie Schwartz into the conspiracy creates paradoxes - the conspiracy either authors a story that implicates Jewish offenders as a way to deflect attention away from Jewish offenders OR the conspiracy has a man in the police (Abberline) capable of deflecting attention away from the club by changing Schwartz's evidence, in which case, the club didn't need to conspire in the first place as they already have a man on the inside.

These paradoxes refute Schwartz as a member of the conspiracy and refute Abberline as a member of the conspiracy.

- Jeff

The paradoxes exist Jeff because we are talking about the opinions of certain people, their perspectives can be extremely different, and often subjective. The harder evidence here....Schwartz being a known associate of Wess's, Schwartz's unknown residence the day before, the delay in coming forward, the likelihood that Wess translated for him...as he apparently did for Goldstein on Tuesday night, the fact that Fanny Mortimer could hear footsteps outside while in her home, and even if not at the door, and did not hear 3 sets of them running nor a slur called across the street, the fact that Fanny Mortimers statement that she was at her door from 12:50 until 1am is corroborated, and that she did not see or hear any cart arriving at "precisely 1am" as was claimed, the fact that the only people seen by anyone in the area from 12:35 until Spooner sees the Jews running for help..(he believed that to be around 12:40-12:45),...was the young couple, the fact that 3 other witnesses that came from inside the club believed they were also there around 12:45 by the dying woman, the fact that Blackwell estimated the earliest cut time from 12:46-12:56, the fact that the club paid staff all said they saw no-one at the times they recorded their close proximity to the murder scene...even though they state they were there at the very same times, the fact that Isaac K's statement taken that night indicated that he was sent alone to get help, something no other club staffer even mentioned, the fact that Strides actual murder might have taken 2 seconds which makes it possible to have taken place right around the time 4 witnesses said they were there...

I could cite lots of things one can use in lieu of possibly tainted opinion to formulate a most probable landscape. And that is for me, that Liz Stride was off the street shortly after 12:35, likely in the passageway to a private club,...which is why Fanny at her off and on times at her door didn't see her,... and that an argument turned deadly in 2 seconds which resulted in a dying woman just inside the gates. The members left at the club heard something was going on, rushed down to see, and among the senior members a quick assessment of her was made and a discussion about what they needed to do took place. Someone not needed there, a junior member, was sent to look for help. Goldstein has empty cigarette cartons destined for the cigarette makers still awake in the cottages in the passageway, turns his head to see whats going on at the gates, and is waved to move on by some members, which he does. Louis and Eagle leave for help at the time they say they did.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

After all that kissing?

[DJA]

Thought BS Man was telling Liz she needed to get some cachous for her bottom lip.

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia - Wikipedia

Catechu - Wikipedia

[JeffHamm]

That Schwartz's statement benefited the Club is completely immaterial. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether his statement is wrong or unreliable as Jeff pointed out. Even if it could be proven that his statement benefited the club it still has to be proven that he deliberately lied. And that unfortunately can not be inferred from his failure to appear at the inquest. If that is all it takes then we have to dismiss Fanny's statement as well.

c.d.

Absolutely. Schwartz's statement if argued to benefit the club could simply reflect that the club was not involved in any meaningful way (being the scene of the crime doesn't mean the club or a club member was involved in the crime) and Schwartz simply reported what he perceived and remembered the events he witnessed to be. Distilling what happened and when based upon his description as recorded is the researcher's job. Some details will be incorrect, because his memory and how he conveys that through words, filtered through a translator, are imperfect transfers of information. He, like everyone, will have some details wrong (errors of recollection), he may have witnessed an unrelated event (as some have argued), he may have misinterpreted what he say (Abberline's argument for Lipski), and so forth. All I'm pointing out is that those errors are immaterial with regards to whether what he reported was concocted by the club to distract attention away from a Jewish offender, and what he reported as he reported it does the exact opposite. All corrections, or reinterpretations if you will, are irrelevant with regards to that analysis (though they are highly important with respect to deciding if his statement is important to the case as a whole).

As for why he didn't appear at the inquest, we don't know. He may, due to his lack of English, simply not shown. He may have feared for his safety, given his testimony would implicate a Jewish offender (the unrest after Annie's murder would not have gone unnoticed by him after all). I suppose the police may even have decided they had enough information to ensure a finding of murder, and withheld his testimony as making it public might re-enflame anti-Jewish tensions (though I would expect there to be indications of that decision in the files, which there isn't). He may have been found to have been unreliable (but again, i would expect that to have been mentioned, given Home Office seemed to view his statement as vital leading to Abberline's letter indicating the likely meaning of the use of Lipski, if they found him unreliable I would think that would be passed on as well). In the end, for some reason, he doesn't appear at the inquest. There is one letter, though, which I don't have my books with me to reference, which includes a statement that one reading of sounds like he did present at the inquest, but I'm pretty sure that's a red-herring/unfortunate wording.

Ahhh, found a previous post where I mention this:

The last part is evidenced by a report from Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office, stamped as received on the 7th of NOV, 1888) and found on page 135 of Evans and Skinner's "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" (and excellent source material reference by the way), which reads:

------------------------------

Confidential

4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
6th November, 1888

Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

With regards to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's Wood, the last known address of the insane medical student named "John Sanders", but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go abroad about two years ago.

I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
C. Warren.
--------------------

That bolded statement seems to indicate that Schwartz testified at the inquest, but we know he did not. Either Warren mis-stated when the opinion was arrived at (meaning, he should have said "before" or "in preparation for" the inquest, rather than "at the inquest"). Regardless, such a mistake seems unlikely to have happened if the police had found Schwartz to have been unreliable, or if they deliberately withheld his testimony. It suggests that Schwartz was expected to testify, and Warren may have, while writing this letter, simply "misspoke" overlooking the fact that Schwartz did not appear for some reason.

So while I believe Warren's statement indicating Schwartz gave testimony is incorrect, it looks to me like the kind of error that suggests the police still had some faith in Schwartz's testimony as useful information.

- Jeff

NOTE: it is, of course, possible that Warren meant the opinion was reached at the Stride inquest (between members of the police), not that the testimony itself was given at the inquest. But that would require a number of senior police, including Abberline, to have been there discussing Schwartz's statement while the inquest was going on, and I don't think that happened either.