A Whip and a Prod

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DJA]

Thanks,much appreciated.

In both cases the members were actually defending themselves.

[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]

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!

[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

[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.

[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'.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

Notable to the entire mythos of this story was that the IWMEC procession that very day was against The Great Synagogue of Duke Street; and, they [the Socialists] were "at odds" with the capitalist gains of this particular set of Juwes. Whether those who attended The Great Synagogue were Dutch or not, I don't rightly know, but I have read that their was a discord between Dutch Jews and Eastern European Jews and to what extent is beyond me. I'm dodging implying anything subversive or conspiratorial in this entire byline between The Great Synagogue and the IWMEC, only furthering the point that there were several internal division within the Jewish community (beyond socialism and anarchism). How close the IWMEC achieved their goals against The Great Synagogue that day, dunno, but I do know they made their procession "over that way", set up an ad hoc speech, and returned to their club (when and where the "festivities" began).

* I just find the subplot between the Synagogue and the IWMEC interesting in this Jack the Ripper casebook.

[Michael W Richards]

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

The 3 club members were not employed by the club. Nor was Spooner, nor was Fanny who was at her door until 1am.

Your theory seems more 'single event', than 'double event'.

Over 10 years ago I started a thread here entitled "Singular Occurrence's/The Double Event", so yeah, I see Liz Strides murder as being unconnected to the second murder that night, and to all the other alleged Ripper murders.

Though many accuse me of the exact opposite, anything Ive proposed can be supported by some existing known evidence. In Liz Strides case the evidence suggest another hand and knife did the handiwork not the ones used to kill Annie, that there was no other visible interest in the body after the single throat cut, that Unfortunates were known to have been spying for the local police on places and people just like the ones in that club, and Stride may well have been mistaken for one...and that she was dressed decently, and had likely spent the money she earned cleaning that afternoon on the flower and cashous instead of drinking it, that she intended to stay away from her normal residence for the entire night....not just long enough to earn some doss, ..there are many bits of circumstantial evidence that along with the overtly obvious fact within the physical evidence that she isn't ripped in any way shape or form, leads to a conclusion that her murder was a brief end to an aggressive encounter.

That evidence also suggests, along with any evidence as to the state of the street, that her murderer came from that property. Ive never assumed or suggested that a club member did it, or that the club covered up for such a member, I have suggested a hired thug as security for that night, likely employed when it was planned to have William Morris speak that night. And, as Robert's post touched upon, he was a polarizing figure in the community of Jews. There had been threats made if he was allowed to speak there. He had responded in writing to an invitation by Wess to speak there at some point, and he was troubled by the potential for people to assume he favored anarchist ideals. He didn't. He was just a Socialist.

I think a thug questioned Liz, either thinking she was selling or wondering if she was spying...and a brief interaction with the woman who by historical record could be aggressive herself ended in his losing his self control. For 2 seconds. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that alcohol was involved on his part. I don't think he left either. Unless the shooed him off once they found out what he'd done, they could have unlocked and let him out the main door. He might have dumped his knife later.

Constable Joseph Drage, 282 H, " At 12:30 on Monday morning I was on fixed-point duty in the Whitechapel-road, opposite Great Garden-street. I saw the last witness stooping down at a doorway opposite No. 253. I was going towards him when he rose up and beckoned me with his finger. He then said, "Policeman, there is a knife down here." I turned on my light and saw a long-bladed knife lying on the doorstep. I picked up the knife and found it was smothered with blood. The blood was dry. There was a handkerchief bound round the handle and tied with string. The handkerchief also had blood-stains on it. I asked the last witness how he came to see it. He said, "I was looking down, when I saw something white." The knife and handkerchief produced are the same."

No big story really. Stupid little argument that ended in violence in one of the most crime ridden and densely populated areas in the modern world at that time. Not a surprising event, considering the environment. The ONLY remarkable thing about it is the timing of it....like people don't want to imagine individual unconnected murders occurring on the same night. Like the 3rd throat slitting that night, Mrs Browns.

[DJA]

I just find the subplot between the Synagogue and the IWMEC interesting in this Jack the Ripper casebook.

The Synagogue and IWMEC were poles apart.

Pretty much Orthodox under Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler vs Markism which was inspired,in part, by Baruch Spinoza.

In between the multilayered mess were people like Ben Disraeli's son.

Ironically less then 60 years later 75% of Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust.

[Robert St Devil]

BEYOND THE CLUB DOOR
I have "my few", that being, those remarkable essays that I return to read for the purpose of an immersion into perspective. Of that short list is The Texture of Politics: London's Anarchist Clubs 1884 - 1914 written by Jonathan Moses, Royal Holloway University London [RIBA President's Awards for Research Shortlisted 2016]. It is a noteworthy essay that is well worth the read for any Ripperologist who wants to venture beyond the club side-door at 40 Berner Steet, E. and within the political aesthetics that shaped the International Working-Men's Education Club. The essay summarizes on the architectural designs of the Autonomie Club and the IWMEC, the IWMEC's time in the "Wilderness" [1892 - 1906], and their "New Beginnings" on Jubilee Street. The essay reasons beyond the functional purpose of the club's dilapidated furniture [ie. deal tables, ruddy benches, &c.] and endeavors to explain how the member's particular political ideologies [anarchicm, socialism, nihilism, fenianism, anarcho-communism. &c.] crafted the very nature of their club environment. For instance, the members rejected those lavish adornments found in other clubs (such as curtains and carpeting) because they reasoned that these were token aspects of capitalistic wealth, and did not wholly represent the laboring Anarchist or Socialist who was opposed to the materialistic natures of the bourgeoisie. Even in this context, the term "represent(ative)" is frowned upon by these Anarchists and Socialists as the true democracy which they idealized was pursued without any forms of representative authority. For this reason, there was no podium because this "lecture-box" would loft one member over the others. At most, the only lavish "decorations" of the IWMEC were: the piano; the humble stage; portraits of 'Marx, Proudhon, Lasalle, and Louise Michelle' (Moses, 2016); red banners of "Remember Chicago" and "Down with Authority"; the Chinese lanterns hanging from the rafters; and, the polka dances... while not understating the presence of the fiddler and the beer! {for this reason, Michael, I have my doubts that a clock was present within the club}.

MEMBERS ONLY??
In the afore-mentioned essay, Jonathan Moses writes about the Jubilee Street Club (1906):

In a departure from previous clubs it was decided not to serve alcoholic drinks, thereby bypassing the obligation to issue membership cards, allowing anybody to come inside. This also made the atmosphere more congenial. {Rudolf] Rocker [editor of Arbeter Fraint] claimed that participation rose considerably as a result, and by removing drunken behaviour, it perhaps went some way to increasing the presence of women – something which, according to Nellie, increased as the years went by.

In Graphic (London), 30 July 1892, in the article The Anarchist at Play:

BERNERS STREET, E., Sunday evening, guest night... the roofbeams are hung with Chinese lanterns and the gas-brackets are pink with twisted paper... the company is scattered about the room, children are playing over benches, mothers are comparing their babies, and groups of budding Anarchists are discussing propaganda... "Now then, ladies and gentleman, your partner for the polka, if you please!" The piano gets a fair start of the fiddle in the tune... Two by two, everyone is suited... More and more, people join in... One or two people drop out furtively into the next room,... where you may sustain yourself with lager-beer and hard boiled eggs

In terms of Elizabeth Stride and any relation to the IWMEC, this aspect raises the possibility that a membership card was required to enter the club -or- that a policy ["obligation"] was in existence that mandated that only club members or sponsored individuals could be allowed access within the IWMEC (Elizabeth Stride meeting neither qualification).

~All emphasis my own~

[Robert St Devil]

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.

I saw an advert in Freedom (London) that the Knights of Liberty were holding their meetings at The Sugar Loaf on Hanbury Street while IWMEC was meeting at 40 Berners Street, E.