Two

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,

Im assuming this is Performing Arts education....music, acting?

Then get used to hearing "vessel"....thats my advice.

Cheers mate.

I don't think us oldies get a choice in the matter

Blimmey Michael, this disease you describe sound's very similar to a course my daughter is taking in London called 'Silver Younges'

Any advice welcome, trusting it is not catching

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

Im assuming this is Performing Arts education....music, acting?

Then get used to hearing "vessel"....thats my advice.

Cheers mate.

[Jeff Leahy]

Blimmey Michael, this disease you describe sound's very similar to a course my daughter is taking in London called 'Silver Younges'

Any advice welcome, trusting it is not catching

Pirate

Perry and Pirate,

It's quite possible that Schwartz was an actor in the Yiddish theater, of which there were a number in London, including in Dorset Street. Having said that, it was the reporter's opinion that Schwartz was 'theatrical looking', whatever that means. The value I get out of that is the indication that Schwartz was not hassidic. Perry's notion that actor's would have been 'religion neutral' is, to my mind, completing unfounded.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Its actually current local stage actors that I used to make my comments, many of which I know .Politics is indeed of great interest to many of them today, primarily for concerns regarding the preservation of arts funding and the protection of our cultural diversity. But religion is for the most part left a subjective thing, having little or nothing to do with their "craft", and I know zero actors who perform only within their own ethic communities, although Im sure a small non-professional group do.

If Schwartz was "theatrical looking" and not ethnically tagged in the same line, I thought perhaps he was an actor in the broader sense, within the theatrical community locally at large, but perhaps not limited to "Yiddish Theatre" as you mention. I suppose Schwartz might be either type, my guess is that without a qualifier like "Yiddish Theater actor", "theatrical looking"...as in flamboyant and expressive....might just mean he acts.

To Dons comments, all I can say is that for local community theater, or mainstream theater at large, raising money and appeasing the producers has always been integral to their success and their livelihood....which is why youll find almost any actor worth his or her salt very willing to portray ideals or characters that within their personal faith might be abhorrent notions. Good acting training teaches people to leave their own personal makeup and agendas outside, and to become an empty vessel that the character can occupy. Good economic training for actors is getting them to understand that they cannot afford to limit their work potential by their look or religious principles. That process detaches actors from their own ethnicity and religious foundations. Therefore to be a true actor, you must be ultimately flexible with your own your perspectives and beliefs, and be a human canvass instead. Because the character, not the actor, chooses his or her own beliefs, regardless of how they may or may not marry with their own philosophies.

Mainstream professional actors in an economy like the one that existed in London in 1888 would be as "religion neutral" as they needed to be to get productions mounted. Im afraid that actors and hookers share a commonality,...they are who you want them to be.

Think of the last time you saw or read about an actor who lives his or her professional life strictly according to their own religious doctrines. Think Richard Gere only works on films that respect animals and all living things? Would he work on a Chinese funded film if the story and character and money were right?

His life and values are kept separate from the ones his characters have....or his employers.

Again, just addressing some posts at my comments....sorry to get off topic.

Best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

We don't have another elephant in the room here do we?

This time Pink ...

I understand that this upsets some people state side?

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

But where is the evidence that there was any sort of club involvement in the crime itself apart from the unfortunate geography?

Indeed, Caz...

Elizabeth Long covered up for the Society of Politically Apathetic English Protestants based at 29 Hanbury Street!!

(Sorry, just transplanting the idea to another scenario to see how it compared.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Perry and Pirate,

It's quite possible that Schwartz was an actor in the Yiddish theater, of which there were a number in London, including in Dorset Street. Having said that, it was the reporter's opinion that Schwartz was 'theatrical looking', whatever that means. The value I get out of that is the indication that Schwartz was not hassidic. Perry's notion that actor's would have been 'religion neutral' is, to my mind, completing unfounded.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Anyone interested in an actor's life at rouighly the same period Jack was active should read On the Stage and Off by Jerome K. Jerome. While it obviously does not refer to the Yiddish theater of the time, it paints a very grim picture of the profession. Certainly, there were no patrons or producers to impress, just company managers to keep in constant sight lest they abscond with the day's take. It was also a life that would seem to have provided little time for political musings of any sort. Rather, it was a constant grind of lines learning, rehearsals, performances and travel throughout the provinces.

Appended is a contemporary illustration of an actor. Certainly flamboyant and a bit of a dandy.

Din.

[Jeff Leahy]

I've no wish to put a dampener on your theory but wouldn't a Jewish immigrant unable to speak English, have some difficulty finding employment as a thespian in Britain?

Pirate

Mike;

Going back to our conversation on the issue of the IWEMC that we had...you make some valid points and I understand your premise. Its as good as any.

Let me simply add this to the mix...a line you made in a previous post above:

"He was a European Jew who was just outside a club that drew European Jewish men specifically....and we know the club was active at that time..."

I might be wrong, but I get the impression that its being assumed ( by you ) that Schwartz would have a definite affinity to the members of the socialist club solely on the ground of a mutual Jewishness.

You'll remember the point I raised about the only major row the IWEMC had was with Jews who were far from enamored with their ideology and presence in the East End.

You may also remember the relevant papers of the time that Mr.Begg and I located specifically (or mentioned without providing them on the site) to Press evaluations of the leftist/socialist Jews in the view of hardline, assimilationist ( Hasidic/Orthodox) Jews, which didn't paint a hamisher picture of these nogoodniks on Berner Street and elsewhere.

Take care Mike.

Hi Howard,

I hadnt forgotten those points raised and they are good ones to consider here. My position is based on the description of Schwartz actually,... "theatrical looking". I assumed an affinity for and perhaps engagement in theater locally, which would make him a "poor actor" at least financially, and therefore likely more aligned with Socialist principles than Judaic dogmas.

So its his economic rather than ethnic status I assumed might lend itself towards a link of Club and Schwartz.

Actors, especially not good ones, tended to have great financial stresses in their early careers trying to find suitable buyers for their "art", a patron or group of patrons that would enable productions and salaries,....and since its the patrons financial means, not his religious affiliations that would draw the actor to them....they tended to avoid direct and concrete associations with any Religion.

Hence the Bohemians, and the plethora of artists of the period gathered in Paris and Italy. Seeking out money...not something intangible in practical terms, like spiritualism.

I believe an actor of that period would be essentially religion neutral...they never knew where the money would come from to produce their art, so best to stay unaffiliated. Ill bet a happy alchoholic would gladly play up sobriety if his play was being financed by abolitionists.

I just though an actor would find Socialism attractive....it wasnt his Judaism....although I can see I did word that interpretation in there.

Just wanted to address your post...but as Caz said, I shouldnt belabor non thread points.

My best regards Howard as always.

[Tom_Wescott]

Notice that Wess talks about the Club being open to all members, yet there must have been a concerted effort to recruit Jews above others, and that for many reasons. So, was it really an 'open' club?

Yes, there was a very concerted effort towards recruitment. Most members and attendees of the club were 18-30 and were Jewish immigrants. Members would haunt areas where newly arrived immigrants or young Jews would be found, such as in Goulston Street. They would hand out pamphlets, befriend them, offer food and lodging, and invite them to meetings, either at the club or in Hanbury Street where people such as Benjamin Feigalbaum would speak and 'convince' these young impressionable Jews that God does not exist. This was a crucial part of the recruitment. You don't recruit someone TO your way of thinking unless you can first recruit them AWAY from their current way of thinking.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jeff

Was she cut on the way down?

Dr Blackwell testified: The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet. There was about 1lb of clotted blood close by the body, and a stream all the way from there to the back door of the club.

No arterial spray.

The scarf seems to have been pulled tight to expose the throat, rather than strangulation. But, it may have been pulled tight earlier in the scuffle and resulted in her screaming three times, but not loudly.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Caz

Liz`s bruises and the position her body when found were discussed earlier in the thread.

It was noted that Liz lay on her left side and looked like she had been placed there, rather than thrown. Link this with the bruises over right collar bone and chest it looks like she has been forced down by some sort of Vulcan grip over right shoulder, and held down, pushing her down on her left side.

Hi guys,

Agreed. But is it not also the case that Liz, unlike the others, seems to have been throatled with her scarf and cut on the way down? Rather than cut once on the ground...

Que Sam

Pirate

[Jon Guy]

Which brings me back on topic, because I really do think the focus should be on the injuries sustained by Liz, and observed by the medical men, and not on the various witnesses whose priority was to give a good account of themselves.

Hi Caz

Liz`s bruises and the position her body when found were discussed earlier in the thread.

It was noted that Liz lay on her left side and looked like she had been placed there, rather than thrown. Link this with the bruises over right collar bone and chest it looks like she has been forced down by some sort of Vulcan grip over right shoulder, and held down, pushing her down on her left side.

[caz]

That's Life

Morning All,

Noting that Sam has not yet arrived to drag this thread back on topic...

It's perfectly understandable that any club finding itself in the spotlight, because an unfortunate woman has just been foully done to death on its doorstep, will take a bit of care over how it conducts itself in the immediate aftermath.

But where is the evidence that there was any sort of club involvement in the crime itself apart from the unfortunate geography? Imagine if a WS1888 member went upstairs for a smoke at one of the meetings and found a known prostitute with her throat freshly cut on the pavement just outside the Aldgate Exchange. One of the committee members might act as a spokesperson, although there would be no language difficulties to overcome. But nobody in their right mind would connect anyone at the club with the crime without any evidence (although they might look twice at Pope de Locksniff ).

Going back to the physical evidence for what happened to Liz, it's likely that Schwartz presumed from the timing, as others do today, that the man he saw approaching her must have gone on to kill her. That in turn was likely to colour the way he remembered and related the encounter. The more aggression he could claim the man showed, the more significance would be attached to his sighting, and the less chance of any suspicion falling on Schwartz for having run 'incontinently' from the scene of a murder. Schwartz's claim that when Liz was thrown to the ground by this violent man, causing her to cry out, he just did a runner and left him to it, is a bit too close for my liking to Hutchinson's claim that a pantomime villain was still filling his boots in Mary's room after nearly an hour, and he just left him to it.

In short, there's an air of self-preservation hovering above both these witnesses and the club, but would we expect anything else from innocent men distancing themselves from an extremely vicious killer? It wouldn't apply to Mrs Long, relating her seemingly benign encounter between Annie and a strange man; nor to the three men who saw Kate with hers - because none of these witnesses was ever going to be in danger of being suspected of any deeper involvement.

Which brings me back on topic, because I really do think the focus should be on the injuries sustained by Liz, and observed by the medical men, and not on the various witnesses whose priority was to give a good account of themselves.

If the lack of mutilations allows for speculation that the man who killed Liz with one sweep of his knife did not go on to kill Kate within the hour, then surely the lack of any physical evidence for Liz falling or being thrown to the ground must allow for speculation that Schwartz overplayed the role of the man he saw, consciously or otherwise. I think Don made a very good point here about relying far too heavily on a brief encounter that we only know about from a witness with umpteen reasons for his reported observations not being 100% reliable:

Jeff.

I do fear your four possibilities are too limiting. By Schwartz's own testimony he was not the most macho of witnesses so is not another scenario that Schwartz, who was not initially paying much attention. suddenly saw some sort of confrontation, heard something (he clearly was not much of an English speaker or hearer) and high-tailed it from the vicinity? He later tried to reconstruct the brief encoimter to the police and then the Star (the latter's reporter almost assuredly asking leading questions) and came up with the account we now know. Not a deliberate falsification, to be sure, but like most eye-witness accounts not CCTV accurate.

Real life is like that, whether we like it or not.

Don.

Love,

Caz
X