Two

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

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

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

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,
Antonio Sironi wrote that essay. I believe Coram was the illustrator. I used to discuss this matter at length with Antonio on a different website and was delighted when his essay was published. However, I don't agree with some of his points. For instance, we can't disqualify Schwartz on the grounds that his evidence doesn't fit with our preconceived notions of what the Ripper was supposed to act like. It's possible our preconceptions are wrong or that Stride wasn't killed by the Ripper or even that the man Schwartz saw was not Stride's killer. Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Ah then my mistake, because Jon started with the name Jane Coram, I had made an incorrect presumption. I trust Mr Sironi will except my apology.

It strikes me that there are only a few possibilities with regards Schwartz Statement. Each of which have there own problems.

a) Schwartz Statement was a deliberate fabrication.

I don't see any hard evidence for this. If Wess was Schwartz interpreter why did he not mention it in court?

b) Schwarz saw another incident and couple not Stride and JtR.

Its really to hard to believe that he would have ID'd Stride if this was the case, he was pretty certain.

c) He saw Stride attacked by someone else in a seperate incident.

In which case we would have seen evidence of an earlier assault. We do Not.

d) Schwartz witnessed Strides murder.

Could Stride have screemed three times while having her throat quickly cut?

Well there it is four possibilities...

For what its worth if Stride was attacked by JtR I dont see that it is that different from the other five...

She propositioned Jack for sex and took him to the place of her death...its simply/probably just a shorter distance from the street to the place of her business....the difference is the fact that people were clearly in veiw, although in the case of Chapman there could have been people very close.

For my money the Police Statement is the element out of sink.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Diemshutz is the steward, correct? His wife is the office manager? So how does Wess run the club?

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

[Tom_Wescott]

By 'not communicating', they simply mean the printing office is a detached building, not physically connecting to the clubhouse. The Arbeter Fraint was most certainly the newspaper of the IWEC and affiliated directly with it. Wess was secretary of the club and as such oversaw the workings of the paper, but Krantz was editor at that time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

"[I]The printing-office, which does not communicate with the club, consists of two rooms, one for compositors and the other for the editor.

Hi Mike

I think "not cummunicating" in this instance means that you had to leave the Club to get to the printing office.

Where did you get all this? Wess was not editor of the AF in 1888, he was he secretary to the club. You could say he was the leader of the IWEC at this time. I have a copy of his membership card, in fact. You're way, way off base with this stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I thought he used the word "editor", instead he does use the word "overseer", and I know Kranz's role, but I thought I recalled Wess being more hands-on as well.... and I had forgotten he claimed that he was a member of the club,... but he doesnt say its as its Secretary.

"William Wess [West], who affirmed instead of being sworn, was the first witness examined, and, in reply to the coroner, he said: I reside at No. 2, William-street, Cannon-street-road, and am overseer in the printing office attached to No. 40, Berner-street, Commercial-road, which premises are in the occupation of the International Working Men's Education Society, whose club is carried on there. On the ground floor of the club is a room, the door and window of which face the street. At the rear of this is the kitchen, whilst the first floor consists of a large room which is used for our meetings and entertainments, I being a member of the club. "

Now this bit is interesting...

"The printing-office, which does not communicate with the club, consists of two rooms, one for compositors and the other for the editor. On Saturday the compositors finished their labours at two o'clock in the afternoon. The editor concluded earlier, but remained at the place until the discovery of the murder."

In the first he says he is the overseer of the print shop and a member of the club, and then he says the print shop and club dont communicate.

Diemshutz is the steward, correct? His wife is the office manager? So how does Wess run the club?

Not that I hate the idea, just that I dont see that in print.

All the best Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

just thought Id add that Wess, the editor of the Arbeter Fraint and to our knowledge merely a tenant in the yard, with no obvious attachments to the club hierarchy or ownership as a member, speaks first at Liz Strides Inquest.

Where did you get all this? Wess was not editor of the AF in 1888, he was he secretary to the club. You could say he was the leader of the IWEC at this time. I have a copy of his membership card, in fact. You're way, way off base with this stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott