Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Wickerman]

There is no evidence that Wess and Schwartz knew each other in 1888.
Also unlikely Wess translated for Schwartz,unless it was in Yiddish ..... which is also unlikely.

I admit, I was repeating what I believe was only a suggestion by Tom Wescott. I never did get the opportunity to ask him why he suggested it in the first place. Giving him the benefit of the doubt I guess, not always the wisest move.

[Wickerman]

First off... note that Louis says..."I ran off, I could not, I shouted, I met...how does that then match with his contention that he left with Issac[s]? Not a "we" among them...

Now c'mon Michael, it has been explained to you before that a witness is only expected to respond with what "I did", "I saw", or "I heard". He isn't answering for the group, just himself. Had you ever been to court you would learn this first hand.

[Wickerman]

Diemshutz:
"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable".
Morning Advertiser, 1 Oct. 1888.

Diemschutz & Isaac K went together for police, and met Spooner.

[Wickerman]

Who returned to the yard with Diemschutz?

"One of the members who is known as Isaacs went out with me."

Who was known as Isaacs?

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as "Isaacs," returned with Diemschitz into the court"

So it was "Isaacs", whose name was Isaac Kozebrodski, who returned to the yard with Diemschutz, then left to find a policeman, with Diemschutz, and eventually, together, they met Spooner.

All pretty straight forward Michael.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

First off... note that Louis says..."I ran off, I could not, I shouted, I met...how does that then match with his contention that he left with Issac[s]? Not a "we" among them. Plus...Louis said he didn't arrive until "precisely 1", Issac says he left around 12:45 just after being notified to go seek help ...by Louis. Issac K does not see Spooner. Which means what? It wasn't Louis and someone that Spooner saw, nor was it Issac k. Or did Louis leave with someone just after sending Issac K at 12:45, ...maybe. 4 people say Louis was there then. It would means Spooners estimate might have been early, but not by as much as 25 minutes as the Inquest seems to suggest.

I doubt pairs of men would have run off precisely together, but two men may have run toward Grove street at more or less the same time, and one of them has picked up Spooner on the way back.
So it would be a matter of personal judgment regarding the togetherness versus separateness of the running men.
Kozebrodsky may not state that he saw Spooner - doesn't mean he didn't though.
By the way, have you checked the account of what occurred, in Arbeter Fraint?

Anyway, while you're getting bogged-down in that issue, you're missing the wider context...

Why, by their own admission, do the men that go looking for and shouting 'police!', take so long to find one?
They only had to stroll down to Commercial Road, and the would have found one - probably in either direction - within a minute.
The there is the question I posed in #1103...

There is something very interesting in [the Star] quote.
Why the mention of the streets to the east of Berner street, that intersect Fairclough street?
Did Schwartz flee from Pipeman along Fairclough, and toward Christian street?
If yes, then why no mention of a man being pursued in that direction, from Edward Spooner?
A few minutes later, Spooner is aware of the 'two Jews' running in the same direction, but for some reason, not so Schwartz and Pipeman.
Why might that be?

According to the Star, 'the man pursued' went down Fairclough, in the direction of Grove street.
Now, if we could just put aside the question of the names of the men that run from the club looking for police, for a few seconds...

Why doesn't Spooner - standing outside the Beehive pub, on the corner of Christian Street - see Pipeman pursuing Schwartz?

It may be argued that the paper got the direction detail wrong, but then why all the mention of the intersecting streets?
Why does - or should I say, how can - Wess apparently claim that many club people witnessed this pursuit?
Why does Wess 'accidently on purpose' forget the name of the man that supposedly did the pursuing?

If either Wess or the Echo are taking liberties with the truth, then how is it that they know about something that looks so similar to the Schwartz incident, in both detail and clock time, and early enough to get this into the October 1 edition?

The people in the adjacent cottages, heard zilch...

[IT1001] The windows of the clubroom are within ten feet of the [murder] spot, whilst the cottages stand almost opposite and command a complete view of it. None of the occupants of these houses, however, heard the faintest noise in the course of Saturday night or Sunday morning. The residents in the yard are tailors and cigarette makers, and they are not in the habit of retiring very early. A reporter who made inquiry among them, however, was unable to find any person who had either seen or heard anything suspicious.

Yet somehow the singers in the club noticed some of the Schwartz incident. Incredible!

Next, when DJA knows well there has been a connection between Wess and Schwartz established...which he doesn't happen to believe...and that Wess spoke several languages and wouldn't be limited to translating in just Yiddish...then its not reasonable questioning.

There is not an explicit connection between Wess and Schwartz, as far as I know, so DJA seems correct on that point.
However, if there is no connection, and Israel Schwartz does not contact the Star for an exclusive (albeit anonymous) interview, then...

How does the Star journalist manage to run 'the Hungarian' to earth, without disclosure of his name and address, by the Leman Street police?

If the answer is, 'local gossip', then Schwartz must be fairly easy to locate, by both journalists and police, at any time after Oct 1.
If that is true, then...

Why do we never hear from Israel Schwartz after October 1, in any context, ever again?

Wynne Baxter's inquest summing up, hints that he was wanted there. So where is he?
Might it be a good idea to first determine what became of Israel Schwartz, before building theories that are based on his story, which includes characters who's only proof of existence is their being part of that story?

[Wickerman]

If either Wess or the Echo are taking liberties with the truth, then how is it that they know about something that looks so similar to the Schwartz incident, in both detail and clock time, and early enough to get this into the October 1 edition?

Seeing as you bring this up, it is well to look into the story a little closer.
As you previously quoted:

A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.

In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation. There is, notwithstanding the number who have visited the scene, a complete absence of excitement, although naturally [?] fresh addition to the already formidable list of mysterious murders forms the general subject of conversation.

The journalist claims to be interviewing the secretary of the club, we know that at the time of the murder William Wess was the secretary.
This story related by Wess is evidence that he was NOT the interpreter used by Schwartz.

The interpreter knew Schwartz's story, that he suspected he was being chased by another man. So, the interpreter knew the man being chased was not the murderer, it was Schwartz. However, Wess (above) does use the time given by Schwartz - 12:45. So, what we appear to have here is a third-hand story by an unknown witness who saw Schwartz being chased by another unknown individual. This witness did not know who was being chased therefore, the witness was not the interpreter who knew Schwartz's story.
Which means, the interpreter was not William Wess.
This story has somehow been merged with the escapades of Diemshutz & Kozebrodski (shouting "murder", "police") running east along Faiclough street.

Why doesn't Spooner - standing outside the Beehive pub, on the corner of Christian Street - see Pipeman pursuing Schwartz?

Perhaps, because Schwartz ran the opposite way, west towards Backchurch Lane, then south towards the railway arch?

This pic shows the club in green circle.
Schwartz's address - 22 Ellen Street in blue circle.
All the points where railway arches cross a road is shown in red.

[DJA]

I admit, I was repeating what I believe was only a suggestion by Tom Wescott. I never did get the opportunity to ask him why he suggested it in the first place. Giving him the benefit of the doubt I guess, not always the wisest move.

My post was for the other Canadian. Thanks though
His "proof" is ......

"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."

He has no proof that Wess could speak more than his native language,Yiddish and English.

Anyone know when this thread is reverting to Jack's purported escape from Mitre Square?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Anyone know when this thread is reverting to Jack's purported escape from Mitre Square?

Just as soon as we've cleared up this Schwartz business, which shouldn't take much longer. It has to be done here as I'm fairly sure there's no Schwartz specific threads, what with him being such an obscure character.

I suppose you could argue that to escape Mitre Square, he first had to get there from Berner St, so maybe it's all relevant. Unless...

[Joshua Rogan]

He has no proof that Wess could speak more than his native language,Yiddish and English.

Aside from Lithuanian (presumably, as he was born there) he spoke a couple of others, at least according to his obituary;

"He came to London, and after learning the English, German and Russian languages..."

No mention of Hungarian, though.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Israel Schwartz at Mitre Square - Q & A

These are based on the idea that some of the key elements and features of Schwartz' Berner Street story, actually make a lot more sense when supposed to have occurred near and within Mitre Square.
Other than Israel Schwartz being Jack the Ripper, the assumptions are:

• Jack is broad shouldered man
• The Church Passage Couple are Kate and Jack
• Joseph Lawende returns to near the passage entrance, shortly after saying goodnight to Levy and Harris, who have walked off along Duke street, in the opposite direction to Lawende.
• Lawende is pipe man - imagine him smoking alone, on the pavement outside the club
• Jack subsequently exits Mitre Square through Church Passage

According to Schwartz, the woman 'was standing in the gateway'. To have been visible to BS Man and Schwartz, Stride must have been standing on the footway (she would have no reason to hide herself in the darkness of the passageway).

Q: Why then does Schwartz say 'The man tried to pull the woman into the street...', if, for all intents and purposes, she already is in the street?
(If the gates had been closed and Stride had remained where first seen, would she be in the street, or in the passageway?)
A: Because in reality, Schwartz attempted to pull Catherine Eddowes out of Mitre Square, and into Mitre Street.

Q: What possible reason would BS Man have, for wanting to pull the woman into the street, anyway?
A: In Berner street - none. In Mitre Square - because Schwartz knows he has been spotted by Lawende, Levy & Harris, and he quite possibly knows and recognizes one or two of these men, who quite possibly recognize him, and he wants to pass (with Eddowes) right through the square, to somewhere safer.

Q: Why did BS Man apparently give up on pulling Stride any further, even though she was a thin, and fairly frail woman, whereas he has the strength to throw her to the ground?
A: Because of the danger the real she - Eddowes - will make too much noise, and Schwartz will be caught. Therefore he throws her down hard, onto the spot where she is subsequently found by PC Watkins, and moans from the pain of nearly being knocked unconscious.

Q: Why does Schwartz state, oxymoronically, that 'the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly'.
A: To explain why none of the residents along Berner street, or any of the residents of the cottages next to the club, nor anyone inside the club near open windows, seem to have heard these noises, nor were drawn to them if they did.

Q: So then why did Schwartz not simply say; 'the woman moaned three times'?
A: Because Stride was not thrown down hard, so she would not have moaned, and Schwartz knew her injury profile would not support suggesting otherwise.

Q: Why then would Schwartz, while being conscious of noise issues, indicate that BS Man called out 'Lipski!' to Pipeman, on the other side of the street - wouldn't someone have heard that?
A: Because Schwartz did not call out 'Lipski' (at Lawende), until he had exited Mitre Square, through Church Passage. That is why people like George Morris didn't hear it. However, Schwartz was clearly being inconsistent in regards to the audibility of the noises made (though fortunately for him, Abberline does not seem to have noticed this).

Q: Why does Schwartz tell Abberline, that 'Lipski' is called out to Pipeman, even though Pipeman does not appear to be Jewish?
A: Because in reality, Pipeman was actually Joseph Lawende, a Polish Jew (and the description given is fake).

Abberline was confused as to why BS Man had called 'Lipski' at Pipeman, apparently a Gentile, and tried to talk Schwartz into seeing that the call must have been directed at him, which to Abberline, would have made much more sense.

Q: Why does Abberline either fail in this quest, or at best leave Schwartz unsure as to who 'Lipski' was directed at?
A: Because in reality, there were only two men in the scene - BS Man (Schwartz) and Pipeman (Lawende) - there was no third man to direct the call at - nor was there much reason to suppose that a Jew would never use that word, toward another Jew.

In the Star version, Pipeman (now Knifeman) exits from the Nelson Beer House.

Q: How could a man have exited the Nelson, if it were very likely closed at the time?
A: Pipe/Knifeman did not exit from the closed beer house. He had actually exited and stood on the pavement outside the open Imperial Club, in Duke street.

Q: Why does Pipeman follow Schwartz, apparently with intent, yet for no apparent reason?
A: Because Lawende strongly suspects that Schwartz has just killed the woman that Lawende had seen Schwartz talking to at the entrance to Church Passage.

Q: Why is it, to quote Swanson, that 'Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other'?
A: Because Schwartz wants to avoid the hangman.

In the scene summarized by Swanson, the situation is effectively two (Schwartz & Pipeman) against one (BS Man).

Q: Why do Schwartz and Pipeman, either individually or together, not come to the assistance of the woman?
A: Because Schwartz is the murderer, and Pipeman pursues Schwartz.

In the Star account, the man who exits the Nelson, menacingly approaches the tipsy man who has just assaulted the woman, with knife in hand.

Q: Who are we to suppose is the murderer, in this version?
A: The tipsy man - Israel Schwartz - who apparently has a drink or two before each murder, but on this occasion he finds he is not the only man in the scene, armed with a knife. So he runs off with his small parcel, which contains the 'goods' procured from the murder.

Q: In the Star version, why does Schwartz flee to his new lodgings (now in Backchurch Lane), rather than going to the Berner street address, as he had been intending to do just a few minutes earlier?
A: So that he does not have to describe what he saw, or how close he subsequently gets, to the location at which he had supposedly witnessed the assault. If he had instead mentioned returning to Berner street, the obvious but unanswerable question would have been about witnessing the crowd outside #40. Unanswerable, because his next destination was actually Goulston street.

Q: Why is the Star version of Schwartz' story, so different to the Abberline/Swanson version?
A: Because Schwartz' story is semi-invented and new, and therefore highly unstable, and consequently some of the major details have changed, less than 24 hours later.

The Star version questions will probably be dismissed on the grounds that the Star is untrustworthy.
To test how far people are willing to take this, here's an open question, based on the following quote:

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.

Q: Is what is stated in the quote True - in the sense that Schwartz did say these things to the Star journalist, or False - these details were made up by the Star?

[Wickerman]

My post was for the other Canadian. Thanks though
His "proof" is ......

"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."

He has no proof that Wess could speak more than his native language,Yiddish and English.

Anyone know when this thread is reverting to Jack's purported escape from Mitre Square?

Haven't all the possibilities been explored?

[DJA]

Aside from Lithuanian (presumably, as he was born there) he spoke a couple of others, at least according to his obituary;

"He came to London, and after learning the English, German and Russian languages..."

No mention of Hungarian, though.

According to George Cores,Wess learnt those three languages between 1881 and 1885,before helping establish IWMEC.
Truth is,Cores was not close to Wess in those years.
He does give himself a plug as a speaker there though.

Wess possibly knew a smattering of Russian and Polish from his home country.

Under the circumstances,do you reckon the police would have utilized Wess as an interpreter for Schwartz?

For what it's worth , I admire Wess's achievements.

[DJA]

Haven't all the possibilities been explored?

Doubt BS could grow any more.

[Wickerman]

Under the circumstances,do you reckon the police would have utilized Wess as an interpreter for Schwartz?

You remember the suspect Ludwig?
Abberline used the interpreter Mr. Smaje to question him.
I think the Met. used their own designated interpreters rather than someone off the street.

[DJA]

That's the way it normally works.
Henry Smaje once resided at 12 Fairclough Street.
Getting back to Berner Street