Two

[Supe]

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.

[perrymason]

Sorry, missed this before. Diemschutz oversaw the care of the property. He was also part owner of the house, if I'm not mistaken. Wess oversaw the machinations of the club. The irony of anarchists is that because they don't believe in dictatorships and rules and leaders, they are rarely effective in organization.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

That Wess had a role of prominence in the club isnt general knowledge, so you'll forgive the probing for a bit more info. As youll note in his own introduction, he says he was a member...hardly suggestive of what you are describing his role as. It would make perfect sense to have someone representing the club speaking at the Inquest, someone in charge so to speak.......that he should speak first however, before people actually there at the time the body is found, is somewhat weird.

Thanks to you and Jon for suggesting that "communicating" in this instance likely was essentially a traffic reference, meaning there was no direct access from the printing office to the club.... not a literal term.

Best regards

[perrymason]

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.

Thats some good speculation Don.....and if he also was affiliated with the Club, even more reason to question the remembrances. I wonder if Schwartz wasnt chosen to provide the story...one because he would need a translator anyway...he couldnt speak directly to the police, or answer a direct question....and 2, maybe he would like to have had something on paper to explain to the Mrs why he was there at that time of night.

To state that he was checking to see if his wife had finished moving at 12:45am, after she had all afternoon to move what is most likely some clothing and maybe a chair or small piece of furniture...isnt really credible.... to me anyway. 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. Even after the meeting. As it often was, spilling into the yard, often until after 1am.

Cheers Don

[Tom_Wescott]

Perry,

Nothing about the Stride murder seems to be general knowledge, except that she was killed by a left handed man who was certainly not Jack the Ripper carrying a dull knife and cachous and that she ate copious amounts of grapes just before dying, dontchaknow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Perry,

Nothing about the Stride murder seems to be general knowledge, except that she was killed by a left handed man who was certainly not Jack the Ripper carrying a dull knife and cachous and that she ate copious amounts of grapes just before dying, dontchaknow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It appears she also dressed in her "good" evening wear clothes for street and alley coitus for cash with smelly dockers and vagrants, and that her maidenfern spontaneously appeared sometime that night.

I know you know a good bit about the Club and its members from your studies, have you decided to put it all together so that we can have access to some "general" knowledge about them?

Maybe the International Club members roster and handbook,...a history of their activities, legal and otherwise if applicable, maybe even if they played a prominent role in organizing the march on Trafalgar?

Cheers Thomas

[Howard Brown]

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.

[The Good Michael]

Howard,

I know this wasn't addressed to me, and I hope you pardon the interruption, but there is an idea floating around that either Schwartz was covering up something or his interpreter was doing it. I do suspect that Schwartz was knowledgeable about the Club at the very least. I also suggest that his work as an actor would seem to lean him to the left (not always). Of course that isn't enough to implicate him and, as Don says, he apparently wasn't the boldest of witnesses. It would seem that someone urged him to come forward to me. The way he 'cut and ran' doesn't make him out to be a person who'd willingly get involved in this, though it is possible he did it on his own.

Back to Wess doing the speaking: I suggest that as the secretary, his communication skills were more up to the task than the others. He may have inserted himself into the pole position because he could clearly speak and not give away anything about the Club that might be construed as overtly anarchistic. Damage control, as it were. He would have set the tome for who was to follow. It is likely, in my mind, that the other Club witnesses were briefed beforehand on what to give away. This doesn't mean lying, but it does mean control of information dissemination which is utterly understood from their socialist perspective. 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?

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hi Don

Firstly good to hear from you and trusting all is well your side of the Atlantic.

I am of course in agreement with your post. It’s quite possible even probable that considerable confusion surrounds Schwartz interpretation of events and Schwartz translation. The question is really to what degree you believe that things got muddled.

However, which ever way the confusion did/or did not take place the basis of what Schwartz did or did not see, still fits into one of the above four categories.

Schwartz either

a) Invented the story. Fraudulently or through confusion

b) Schwartz saw a separate incident, which he believed to be the murder via confusion.

c) Schwartz saw Stride attacked by someone else, and believed he’d seen the murder

d) Or he did witness the murder, but his account is confused and muddled.

Given the unknown a speculative nature of a) I cant see much being gained from that path valid though the suggestion might be.

As I said given Schwartz positive identification of Stride I think it reasonable to dismiss option b)

Which leaves..He saw Stride involved in a separate attack or he witnessed the murder.

Given that this thread is about the bruising Stride would have received in option c) I’d be very interested in your opinion?

Also if Schwartz did witness the murder, is it possible for the account he gave to fit with the known facts?

Of course allowing for the fact that, clearly, as you say, some confusion must have taken place.

All the best

Pirate

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jeff

Many thanks for taking the time to outline your thoughts. I am in agreement with your observations. Just one point that was raised and that is I believe Schwartz did not flee to his new lodgings as he was possibly worried about drawing anti-semitic attention to his new address.

This thought came to mind when a Polish guy I work with was telling me about how he was followed out of a pub by a couple of dodgy local lads. As he was been followed he made a point of not going to the street where his wife and kids were sleeping.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[perrymason]

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.