September 30,1888- The night of Clues?

[scottnapa]

Team- i don't believe the Imperial Club was a Socialist Club. I doubt Joseph Hyam Levy was a Socialist. He was an established Londoner, born in Aldgate and very successful. Lawende was a Polish immigrant but that did not make one a Socialist. I believe this Club was a social club for Jews and was there long before the Jewish Radicals came to the East End . Also Levy would have been considered a Master and likely not allowed in a Place like the International Working Mens Club on Berner Street.
Fishman gets into alot of this in his East End Jewish Radicals.
Worth the read and alot of Press Reports from that time period. It's important to note that besides a Class System there was also a clear distinction between the existing London born Jews and the Immigrants. Even the Jewish Chronical could appear anti immigrant. This appears to be traced back to the long fight the London Jews fought to be accepted into London Society and as members of Parliament.
I'm not sure you can not look at the Whitechapel Murders and not ask - What Jewish person are you talking about or describing? In the latter case the witnesses. What did foriegner mean? He looks Jewish or was an immigrant Jew?

No Englishman could be the Ripper! Does that mean it had to be an Immigrant Jew? Did that thought affect the Investigation? Joseph Hyam Levy, a butcher, when he got the knock on his door by Police after Eddowes Murder was not considered a suspect. Yet he was a butcher and a Jew but also an Englishman. Eddowes was certainly butchered.

The point is there were distinctions in Class and being English v One of the new Immigrants coming from Eastern Europe. It could have affected the investigation if Foriegner or of Jewish appearance had a specific meaning.

Thoughts??

So thank you for the update, It does change things. I read that it was a socialist club on this site and so believed it,
(I just assumed everyone on the site was an expert on everything, Then, Patrick, I got caught up in the JFK thread.)

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Scott- far from an expert. More of a retired reading junkie :-)

[Patrick Differ]

Sean- interesting info on the Imperial Club. It's location near the Great Synagogue and Beavis Marks Synagogue put it at the heart of where Anglo Jewry began in London. From what I have read this area was frequented by the Rothschild and Disraeli families. So it was the Central Hub for Jewish London. Its Roots if you will. The caretaker for the Great Synagogue was a Levy. No idea which one but the first Synagogue was founded by a Benjamin Levy around 1690. Beavis Marks.

By 1888 the 2 large Synagogues were losing patrons and the Immigrants were setting up small Synagogues accross the East End. The Chief Rabbi of London was unhappy and Rothschilds had to prop them up financially.

Joseph Hyam Levy was heavily involved with many of the Jewish Charities. Perhaps the Imperial Club was there to help rebuild the Patronage? Accounting?

imagine if JtR was one of the local Jews like Joseph Hyam and the Rothschilds found out about it?? If it got out it would destroy the entire London Jewish Community. All their gains would be lost.

How important is Mitre Square and Goulston Street?

Mitre Square and St James Place is where London Jewry began!

[GBinOz]

Hi Tom,

I've just grabbed the inquest testimony of James Brown (as found under the official documents section of Casebook), which is from the Daily Telegraph I believe. I've bolded and underlined a few bits that I wanted to comment upon:

James Brown: I live in Fairclough-street, and am a dock labourer. I have seen the body in the mortuary. I did not know deceased, but I saw her about a quarter to one on Sunday morning last.
The Coroner: Where were you? - I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Fairclough-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School. I was in the road just by the kerb, and they were near the wall.
[Coroner] Did you see enough to make you certain that the deceased was the woman? - I am almost certain.
[Coroner] Did you notice any flower in her dress? - No.
[Coroner] What were they doing? - He was standing with his arm against the wall; she was inclined towards his arm, facing him, and with her back to the wall.
[Coroner] Did you notice the man? - I saw that he had a long dark coat on.
[Coroner] An overcoat? - Yes; it seemed so.
[Coroner] Had he a hat or a cap on? - I cannot say.
[Coroner] You are sure it was not her dress that you chiefly noticed? - Yes. I saw nothing light in colour about either of them.
[Coroner] Was it raining at the time? - No. I went on.
[Coroner] Did you hear anything more? - When I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Murder" and "Police." This was a quarter of an hour after I had got home. I did not look at any clock at the chandler's shop. I arrived home first at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, and I believe it was not raining then.
[Coroner] Did you notice the height of the man? - I should think he was 5ft. 7in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - He was of average build.
[Coroner] Did either of them seem the worse for drink? - No.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether either spoke with a foreign accent? - I did not notice any. When I heard screams I opened my window, but could not see anybody. The cries were of moving people going in the direction of Grove-street. Shortly afterwards I saw a policeman standing at the corner of Christian- street, and a man called him to Berner-street.

Schwartz apparently says he witnessed B.S. and Pipeman around 12:45, which corresponds to when James Brown says he saw his couple as well. Clearly, the two events cannot have happened at the same time, but we know that everybody involved is estimating from memory what the time was, so discrepancies like this are hardly surprising.

However, Brown's 2nd underlined statement, combined with his first one, reads to me that his sighting occurs on his way home (... I then went home, when I saw a man and woman ...), with the first statement placing that sighting around 12:45.

In the 3rd underlined/bolded bit, he says that a quarter hour after he got home (which was just down the street, so very close to 12:45 when he gets home) he hears people yelling, etc. This fits well with Deimshitz's testimony of finding the body at 1, followed a few minutes later by the men running off to find police along Fairclough. That is further supported by the 4th bit, as Diemshitz and the men state they ran to the end of the street, before heading back and picking up Spooner. I think the "policeman" that Brown mentions must, in fact, be Spooner, so Brown mis-identifies Spooner as a polieman, which is an understandable error under the circumstances.

I find Brown's statements to fit so well with independent testimony, that I think he's pretty reasonable with respect to the time aspects. But I don't see how anything he testifies allows us to then decide if Schwartz must have witnessed things before or after Brown spots his couple? Meaning, if Schwartz has his "12:45" out by 5 to 10 minutes, then the events Schwartz describe could very well occur after Brown's sighting. On the other hand, the Schwartz event could have occurred before Brown's sighting, although then it starts to clash with Fanny Mortimer (but her statements being all over the show, that might not be possible to avoid), and we have the PC sighting on Berner Street as well.

I'm just curious as to what information we have that allows us to order things Schwartz -> Brown as opposed to Brown -> Schwartz? While even what I've described above does allow for either, there seems a much smaller window of opportunity for the Schwartz -> Brown (it would almost suggest the Schwartz incident occurs in the 3-4 minutes Brown is in the chander's shop, though I accept that's not necessary - but it would have to be before Brown leaves home in the first place otherwise - further narrowing the window on that side of things).

Anyway, I'm not trying to imply that what you're suggesting is impossible, rather just wondering what information I'm missing? Thanks.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Something that was left out of the Daily Telegraph, but was contained in the account by the Daily News was the statement by Brown "I heard the woman say, "Not tonight, some other night."." This does not to me seem to be the statement of a woman taking the opportunity to solicit. Adding the fact that the man Brown saw was wearing a full length overcoat, and Brown didn't notice the woman wearing a flower, I have serious doubts that the woman Brown saw was Stride.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Something that was left out of the Daily Telegraph, but was contained in the account by the Daily News was the statement by Brown "I heard the woman say, "Not tonight, some other night."." This does not to me seem to be the statement of a woman taking the opportunity to solicit. Adding the fact that the man Brown saw was wearing a full length overcoat, and Brown didn't notice the woman wearing a flower, I have serious doubts that the woman Brown saw was Stride.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Indeed, Brown's description of the man's clothing is quite different from the descriptions of other men possibly seen in Stride's company. However, if Stride was soliciting, then she might be expected to be seen with a number of different men. But, as you say, the statement also seems a bit out of place with the idea of Stride soliciting, unless she is waiting for someone to return (Broad Shoulders, for example).

But, I agree with you that there is good reasons to question Brown's sighting, although I believe he also says he was sure the woman was Stride (presumably he identifies her in the morgue). So we're left with either he's mistaken about his identification of Stride, or he's misremembered the man's clothing, or she was seen with another man and her statement was sending him off, or her statement is being misunderstood by us because it's out of context, etc.

Often, when I'm looking at such things, I admit I often start from the idea that the sighting is genuine to examine the implications, see if it fits in with any time constraints imposed by other witnesses, and so forth. However, I sometimes neglect to mention that just because I'm starting from "genuine" doesn't mean I am convinced it is. That's because, if it's not genuine (as in a misidentification), then almost all of it can be dismissed. Perhaps with Brown, though, the implications of it being a different couple are more important, as it may start to put a different set of constraints as to where in the sequence the murder could have taken place.

I agree, there are very good reasons to be sceptical of Brown's sighting, but I also believe that applies to any and all eye-witnesses. It's working out which bits are reliable and which bits are not that's important. I think his estimates of the times are useful and that he saw a couple. Whether or not that couple included Stride is unclear, and how accurate his description of the man is cannot be determined so we need to consider a range of possibilities, and hopefully in there somewhere is something close to the truth.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

Hi George,

Indeed, Brown's description of the man's clothing is quite different from the descriptions of other men possibly seen in Stride's company. However, if Stride was soliciting, then she might be expected to be seen with a number of different men. But, as you say, the statement also seems a bit out of place with the idea of Stride soliciting, unless she is waiting for someone to return (Broad Shoulders, for example).

But, I agree with you that there is good reasons to question Brown's sighting, although I believe he also says he was sure the woman was Stride (presumably he identifies her in the morgue). So we're left with either he's mistaken about his identification of Stride, or he's misremembered the man's clothing, or she was seen with another man and her statement was sending him off, or her statement is being misunderstood by us because it's out of context, etc.

Often, when I'm looking at such things, I admit I often start from the idea that the sighting is genuine to examine the implications, see if it fits in with any time constraints imposed by other witnesses, and so forth. However, I sometimes neglect to mention that just because I'm starting from "genuine" doesn't mean I am convinced it is. That's because, if it's not genuine (as in a misidentification), then almost all of it can be dismissed. Perhaps with Brown, though, the implications of it being a different couple are more important, as it may start to put a different set of constraints as to where in the sequence the murder could have taken place.

I agree, there are very good reasons to be sceptical of Brown's sighting, but I also believe that applies to any and all eye-witnesses. It's working out which bits are reliable and which bits are not that's important. I think his estimates of the times are useful and that he saw a couple. Whether or not that couple included Stride is unclear, and how accurate his description of the man is cannot be determined so we need to consider a range of possibilities, and hopefully in there somewhere is something close to the truth.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I believe that Brown said that he was ALMOST certain that the woman was Stride.

I agree that the man's clothing being different from that of other men Stride was seen with doesn't mean that the woman couldn't have been Stride. In fact, the other men that Stride was seen with might also have not all been the same man.

I don't read too much into her "not tonight, some other night" comment, because as you say we don't know the context, what he said before she said that. And even if it means what it is often assumed to have meant, it would only mean that at that point she wasn't soliciting. Maybe she was earlier, especially if it happened after BS man assaulted her. That might have been enough to make her not want to solicit that night.

It could be that Brown didn't see the flower because the man was blocking his view of it, or Brown's attention just wasn't focused on that. I'm not saying that the woman definitely was Stride, just that I'm very open to that possibility.

[c.d.]

"Not tonight, some other night" could also have been a tactful way to brush off someone that she would have preferred not to do business with. Perhaps someone she had encountered before who was reluctant to pay up afterwards or was perhaps a little rough, smelled bad etc.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I don't believe there's any evidence to support the idea Stride was soliciting.

Prostitution is not a 24/7 pastime.

She had her room paid for and didn't need the money for a bed.
She was dressed in attire more accustomed to a woman on a date
She worked for the Jewish community
She spoke Yiddish

Perhaps the "No, no tonight" comment is as straight forward as it sounds; ergo, she wasn't soliciting that night.

[Lewis C]

I agree that what c.d. said and what RD said are also possibilities.

[c.d.]

I don't believe there's any evidence to support the idea Stride was soliciting.

Perhaps not actively soliciting but that does not rule out a change of mind if approached by Jack. That is the key point.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I believe that Brown said that he was ALMOST certain that the woman was Stride.

I agree that the man's clothing being different from that of other men Stride was seen with doesn't mean that the woman couldn't have been Stride. In fact, the other men that Stride was seen with might also have not all been the same man.

I don't read too much into her "not tonight, some other night" comment, because as you say we don't know the context, what he said before she said that. And even if it means what it is often assumed to have meant, it would only mean that at that point she wasn't soliciting. Maybe she was earlier, especially if it happened after BS man assaulted her. That might have been enough to make her not want to solicit that night.

It could be that Brown didn't see the flower because the man was blocking his view of it, or Brown's attention just wasn't focused on that. I'm not saying that the woman definitely was Stride, just that I'm very open to that possibility.

Hi Lewis,

It is entirely possible, likely even, I misremembered how confident he was in his identification. Regardless, my main view is we have to consider both possibilities, the woman may have been Stride, or not. The implications of which side of that choice we make may simply result in some tweaks to a theory, or it may make a theory untenable if one of those options is true. My view is that a theory of the first sort is one worth more consideration than one of the latter simply because it survives in one form or another regardless, while the latter hinges on guess the right way.

- Jeff

[New Waterloo]

Morning all. I think that Jeff, George and others are making very very important points about Browns sighting. Brown clearly states that he saw the couple returning home with his supper at the corner of the board school. He does not say what corner but there is an assumption it is the Berner Street corner.

Now Brown walks home. He lives next door to the Beehive Pub.

At this time Spooner states he is standing by the Beehive pub with his lady friend.

Brown does not mention seeing any other couple other than the couple he describes.

Now Jeff suggests that a bit later Brown mistakes Spooner as a policeman. This seems likely BUT this means to me that Spooner was at that time on his own without his lady friend. Where is she.

I will stick my neck out now. I believe the couple seen by Brown were Stride and Spooner. Short coat man has gone. Possibly into the yard of the club. It is a classic tug of war over a woman.

Something then happens in the yard

NW

[GBinOz]

My inclination is that the couple were that referred to by Mortimer or Spooner and girl friend. "Not tonight, some other night" would be an appropriate goodnight from Spooner's girlfriend, and would explain her absence at further events.

[Abby Normal]

My inclination is that the couple were that referred to by Mortimer or Spooner and girl friend. "Not tonight, some other night" would be an appropriate goodnight from Spooner's girlfriend, and would explain her absence at further events.

agree george.
browns sighting was probably not stride. the man dosnt match the descriptions of the other witnesses, browns not totally sure its her, he dosnt see the flower and the timing is off. as you say, it might be mortimers couple and or even packers.

[seanr]

How important is Mitre Square and Goulston Street?

Mitre Square and St James Place is where London Jewry began!

Mitre Square was majorly important. The Great Synagogue was the seat of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom until the area was destroyed in World War 2 during the Blitz.

Kearley and Tonge's head office was in Mitre Square, they were the importing arm of the International Tea Company which distributed across the UK to the International Tea Company Stores of which there were 200 in 1885. Hudson Ewbanke Kearley, 1st Viscount Devonport, who co-founded the company went on to become the first chairman of the Port of London Authority in 1908. They regularly imported goods from the British Empire and beyond. If you wanted to bring anything into the United Kingdom, there could have been no better way to import than through the expertise of Kearley and Tonge.