A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Tom_Wescott]

Especially since there seems to be evidence piling up that Schwartz was tight with the IWEC.

What evidence is piling up? Your 1905 reference most likely does not refer to Israel, or at least there's no reason at this point to suppose it does. Outside of that, there's only the circumstancial evidence I laid out years ago. Nobody has added anything else to the case for us to say Schwartz was tight with the IWEC, so let's all try not to make mountains out of molehills.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I know it looks like I'm picking on you today, Maria. LOL. But that's not the case. You're just the most recent poster on the threads I visit, so you're catching it at the moment. Damn your luck!

[c.d.]

Ok. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Schwartz was tight with the IWEC. What can we conclude from that? I'd say not a damn thing. Tight with the IWEC or never heard of the IWEC he either saw what he said he did or he didn't.

c.d.

[sleekviper]

That is part of the point C.D., with me at least. I don't know how we would know if it is what Schwartz saw, if he saw anything. Schwartz can not understand a thing that is happening, so someone might have said that this is an immigration hearing. Schwartz hears, "Why are you in England, and what is the situation that brought you to our country?" Answer to the real question is BS man story. If something such as that did occur, Schwartz could never admit to it once he knew what had happened, he would be worried about being booted out the country, if not placed in jail for being apart of a plan to alter a police investigation. Police do not want crowds roaming the streets lynching anyone that they deem is the ripper, namely a 5 foot something Jewish male. If an answer seems fishy, all they have to say is that it must not have translated well, let me ask again, and now there is a heads up on how the answer should sound. The whole thing could be 100% correct, but at a time when police are wiping messages off walls, this is awfully perfect for the circumstances.

[sleekviper]

Hi Maria. Yes, not a stone should go unturned, dead end or not. If someone can make it a point of doubt, it needs to be known or else the doubt can lead to never having a complete solution to the case.

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
What evidence is piling up? Your 1905 reference most likely does not refer to Israel, or at least there's no reason at this point to suppose it does. Outside of that, there's only the circumstancial evidence I laid out years ago. Nobody has added anything else to the case for us to say Schwartz was tight with the IWEC, so let's all try not to make mountains out of molehills.
Hi Tom,
you probably don't have time to check up the Kaufmann thread, where some of this has been discussed, but the Schwartz no-first-name anarchist orator (mentioned in French spy reports in 1902, 1903, and 1905) spoke at an anarchist meeting together with Russian revolutionary Tcherkesow, who Lynn Cates says was tight with William Wess. In another French spy report (which I don't have in my hands right now, but I will in March), this Schwartz no-first-name is described as a skilled orator in Yiddish, Polish, and Hungarian, with no good English skills. Naturally I'm not yet ready to come to any conclusions about this, as it's still “under investigation“, as they say. ;-) Debra Arif is looking up for Schwartzes in anarchist/socialists pamphlets, Lynn Cates is going through the sweaters' papers, and at some later point I'll check The Jewish Standard from 1902-1905 for any reference, and esp. Der Arbeter Fraint from 1902-1905, in case this Schwartz published any editorials/essays in there, preferably under his full name.
Also permit me to say that your circumstantial evidence (about William Wess having translated for the police before) has gotten my antennas to full attention from the first time it was mentioned.
Please don't mistake this early researching state with any conclusions. I'm just throwing things up in the air for discussion here. It's still too early for anything more than that.

Hi C.D.,
were it to turn up that Israel Schwartz was indeed the Schwartz mentioned in the French secret police reports, it's still possible to hypothesize than Schwartz' acquaintance with the IWEC started after he witnessed the Stride murder in the fall of 1888, as a coincidence. Still, my own gut feeling says that if Schwartz was tight with the IWEC, the coincidence of his having witnessed an early attack of the very woman who was found unpleasantly dead in front of their very club a bit later on is a coincidence quite a bit hard to swallow.
But we'll see.

[Tom_Wescott]

Also permit me to say that your circumstantial evidence (about William Wess having translated for the police before) has gotten my antennas to full attention from the first time it was mentioned.

I think I'm going to do what I've been threatening for years, and that's do a proper write up for the whole 'Schwartz as IWEC member' theory. That way it can be properly discussed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Sleekviper wrote:
Yes, not a stone should go unturned, dead end or not. If someone can make it a point of doubt, it needs to be known or else the doubt can lead to never having a complete solution to the case.
Completely with you on this, Sleek. And it's definitely not dead-end. Barnett is dead end. Berner Street features a rich potential for research.
Sleek, the London police most probably fetched their own Yiddish translator at some later point during Schwartz' (second?) testimony. The problem with the police is not really the translation (the translation becomes more of a problem in the newspaper reports), the problem is what Schwartz saw, if at all, and if he interpreted what he saw correctly, and if he lied a bit or at all in his testimony.

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
I think I'm going to do what I've been threatening for years, and that's do a proper write up for the whole 'Schwartz as IWEC member' theory. That way it can be properly discussed.
That'd be cool. I still haven't managed to read the Gavin Bromley piece, but I will soon. Also isn't there an Edoardo Zinna piece on the IWEC as well? Can you direct me to where? Which issue of Rip?

[sleekviper]

That is true Maria, the thing is, anything that is said on the behalf of Schwartz, never places him in jeopardy since it can be attributed to the language barrier. The first statement should have been with a police translator, as it is, it was a dress rehearsal for any subsequent statements that may need to be provided if the police had reason to use one. Since this is crowd control for the police, I doubt that any rush would have been made to bring someone in.

[Tom_Wescott]

That'd be cool. I still haven't managed to read the Gavin Bromley piece, but I will soon. Also isn't there an Edoardo Zinna piece on the IWEC as well? Can you direct me to where? Which issue of Rip?

Are you referring to Bromley's 'Mrs. Kuer's Lodger?' The Schwartz stuff is excellent and should have appeared in it's own article. Eduardo Zinna published an excellent article on the IWEC in Ripperologist magazine many moons ago when it was still a print journal. I can't recall the issue number offhand, but it is not yet available in electronic format, and was unfortunately overlooked for Rip's 'Best of' book.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
Are you referring to Bromley's 'Mrs. Kuer's Lodger?' The Schwartz stuff is excellent and should have appeared in it's own article.
Yes, precisely. I have it on my computer, I've had a very quick look at it, it definitely mentions Schwartz, and I was meaning to carefully read it since weeks. I might manage to do this in the coming days, but first I need to prepare a tricky proposal for a conference.
I'll ask around about the Zinna piece. At the worst, I guess I'll have to PM him. I just don't wanna bother him, especially during Xmas.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a good thought. Eduardo might have it in pdf to send to you, because purchasing the issue itself would be a bit pricey now. His essay does not talk about Schwartz.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
Eduardo might have it in pdf to send to you, because purchasing the issue itself would be a bit pricey now. His essay does not talk about Schwartz.
I've already asked Lynn to xerox it for me (as he already sent me his The London years on loan), but he doesn't have it. I guess Zinna himself might be the sole Ripperologist to still have it on pdf format. I don't care if Schwartz is mentioned, I need to read this regardless, especially by Zinna.
And thank you so much for the insider info.

[c.d.]

If Schwartz was indeed tight with the IWEC, why is it then so surprising that he would be outside of their building?

Again, the problem is that even if Schwartz was the founder of the IWEC or was secretly the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler, it does not rule out the fact that he could very well have seen what he said took place.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi C.D. The significance is the fact that the Berner Street club members were potentially in very hot water, then enter Schwartz with two ready made suspects - Pipeman the Nordic and BS Man the anti-Semite. If an affiliation between Schwartz and Wess or the club was proved, it could be seen to cast down on his testimony, as it would provide a motive for lying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott