A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[lynn cates]

puzzled

Hello Michael. Your question leaves me a bit puzzled. I am not sure what your take on my position is, so perhaps I can make a suggestion or two for the purpose of disambiguation.

First, as I have said before, I have no reason to believe that Liz was spying the night she died. It makes absolutely no sense for her to be observing at a distance AFTER the main meeting had broken up. That would be a waste of time so far as I can see.

Second, she (or any other police designee for information gathering) could merely have popped round to the club and have joined in. This was a common practice (I mean visiting the club) and much encouraged by Socialist League movers and shakers like Charles Lane and Frank Kitz.

Third, I do hold open, as a distinct possibility, that Liz had, in times past, been given a shilling or two to keep her ears open--especially whilst working "amongst the Jews." This would have been particularly salient given her knowledge of Yiddish.

Further than this I cannot go. If I have failed to answer something, please re-ask and I'll be happy to offer an answer. Perhaps we agree more than you think.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I must say I have only ever heard of one 'second bloke' case, for instance, and that was from a tv drama scriptwriter, whose imagination gave us a banged-up serial killer with a smuggled in mobile phone, giving instructions to his sidekick on the outside to carry on the good work, so they'd think the wrong man had been caged. "

Ehrmm ... let´s see here ... Lynda la Plante? Yes?

"He was just a man whose intentions weren't good
Dear Lord, how can this be so misunderstood?"

Dear me, I´ve forgotten - was that Mike Batt or Alan Parsons? Either way, I can´t get that sodded tune out of my head now; thanks, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Caz. I am not certain all that’s being asked of me here so perhaps it is easier to propose a few items. Perchance my observations will coincide with at least some of the answers to your questions. This strategy, of course, depends on the supererogatory forbearance of CD.

First, I propose that Jacob Isenschmid killed Polly and Annie. Concerning this gentleman we know that:

1. By both his and his wife’s statement he was wandering about East London. He left home and was often dressed in his butcher’s regalia carrying at least 2 knives with him.

2. His physical description matches the one given by Mrs. Fiddymont et al of the bloke who, with blood stained hands and hair, drank off some ale in the pub. (Interestingly, both Abberline then and Professor Sugden now seem to agree that Mrs. Fiddymont witnessed Isenschmid.)

3. As you recall from the press report, Isenschmid was followed and his behaviour was erratic. He would come to a cross road and look all about then proceed wherever the impulse took him. (About a month earlier he was found in a house off Caledonia rd and remanded to the Clerkenwell police station. He was subsequently released.)

4. Although I find serious anomalies in Mrs. Long’s testimony, it is instructive to read carefully her description of the man chatting up Annie just before she was attacked. Compare that description to some of Isenschmid’s photos—the younger ones I mean.

5. Both Polly and Annie were killed close to a horse slaughter yard. It is my conjecture that JI, in his peregrinations about East London, came upon those spots and, given his vocation, his attention was held by the process he was witnessing. (Caz, have you heard the operations in those yards described? Or, have you seen the website I posted about sheep slaughter and their subsequent disembowelment? Interesting! Now, compare this to the conditions of both Polly and Annie when found.)

6. Recall that, during one of his commitments, JI was said to carry a piece of paper with trinkets—various worthless items like studs. If true, that would provide a good basis for understanding why Annie’s rings were taken and her pockets rifled.

7. That JI likely was sexually disturbed seems clear from a statement made by his wife about his fondness for “other women” and a remark by the medical attendant at Colney Hatch describing JI’s behavior there, He says he wears a white flower in his buttonhole as he is all purity (indirect quote). When juxtaposed, they seem indicative of an approach/avoidance conflict.

8. JI is on record as threatening to “take the life of 4 women.”

9. He attempted to strangle his wife. She was rescued by a neighbour. Recall that both Polly and Annie were strangled before being mutilated. Both had tongues that were swollen and protruding.

10. It is true that no blood was found on JI’s clothing. But notice his wife’s statement about when he returned home for a change of clothing. Mark well the dates.

11. JI was taken into custody on September 12 at the Islington workhouse infirmary and thence, the same day, to the Grove Hall lunatic asylum.

Second, read carefully Wynne Baxter’s summary at the Stride inquest. But focus, not only on what he says of Stride, but note particularly his remarks vis-à-vis Kate and the stark contrast he draws between her and Polly and Annie. In particular, note the remark that Kate’s slayer is possibly an imitator.

Third, go to my Kaufmann thread and read Rocker’s account of the work of the agent provocateur (or Butterworth, for that matter). Now look well to the circumstances of Liz’s death.

Fourth, notice that, (if you have read Gareth’s excellent dissertation) Kate had her nose tip amputated first. I opine that, apart from her death, her nose was the target; the disembowelment, an afterthought. Why was the nose a target? Go to my Kaufmann thread and read the snippet about “Socialists in Russia” and why they cut off a spy’s nose.

Finally, note that there was a 3 week lull before the “Double Event.” But how convenient that someone (JI, I think) had already given an MO behind which to hide. Caz, if you are a Brother Cadfael fan, recall the first episode, “One Corpse too Many.”

In summation, what I have is an embryonic theory. It requires time to grow. Hopefully, I can offer something more definitive within, say, the next 122 years.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

...he refrained from "doing his thing", as displayed by the other four canonicals. And if one wants to make a case for Jack NOT being around in the yard, then THAT becomes a viable point, further strengthened by our mutual agreement that a killer like Jack seemingly stuck to his ways, if given the opportunity.

Applying my scenario, she would not only comply to a wish to go into the yard - she may well have been the initiatior!

Well this is the thing, Fish. It makes no difference if Stride was happy or not to go into that yard, if that yard, at any point in the proceedings, would have struck a serial mutilator as the wrong place to "do his thing". Jack was never caught in the act of killing or mutilating, so we can at least assume that he would not have 'stuck to his ways' (not that he exercised them on many occasions) regardless of what was going on around him.

...a crime scene that displays a two-second spur-of-the-moment deed, not followed up on in any way with what could be described as necro-sadism.

...the man who cut Stride could not possibly have been sure that the cut WAS a fatal one...

...if somebody had exited the club through the side entrance seconds after the cut, then he or she would have come upon a living Stride! She would not have been able to speak, due to the cut windpipe, but how sure would the cutter be of that? Having delivered the cut in very dark conditions, he could not have seen the damage by eyesight, remember. Are you suggesting that he was so superiorly sensitive to the exact depth his cut would produce? Are you so sure that he would casually have relied on Stride not being able to point that finger in any fashion? Would he have taken the risk, IF THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT, given our knowledge of how the necks of the other four canonicals looked after having been subjected to Jack´s knife?

But that applies even more to a one-off killer known to Stride. If she didn't know Jack from Adam (and especially if he crept up on her a few minutes after BS man had left at, say, 12.46 and she never saw his face) why would he fret over whether he had left her dead or only 'for dead', or badly wounded, as long as he was on his toes in a Mitre Sq direction before she or anyone else could raise the alarm? Equally, if somebody could have exited the club 'seconds after the cut', you've just provided Jack with the perfect reason for not hanging around with the body.

There is a perception here that Jack would never, or could never have killed on the spur of the moment, or without the guaranteed opportunity to consummate the deed with a bit of trademark mutilation. Just a means to an end, an inconvenience to be got out of the way, like having to put on a condom. But how do we know this? How do we know that every part of the process, from the approach, the overpowering and the blade first striking flesh, right through to his swift, unseen flight to safety, did not provide its own exhilarating moment, independent of any time spent inflicting further damage? If men got no thrill from the chase, the wooing, or even the moment of penetration, and needed a written guarantee of full consummation beforehand, none of us would be here now.

At least in Jack we don't need to grasp for motive. He kills because he can; he mutilates when he can. It's what men like him do. We know he has killed at least twice before, so the murder taboo is well out of the way and he is now geared up for it every time he takes his knife out for walkies. It's funny how those who lack the imagination to see why he might have killed Stride, with or without the chance of some necro-sadism thrown in, burden themselves with the much greater task of thinking up a bloody good motive for Stride's murder, on behalf of someone not even known to have existed.

I can't say I envy them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"He was just a man whose intentions weren't good
Dear Lord, how can this be so misunderstood?"

Dear me, I´ve forgotten - was that Mike Batt or Alan Parsons? Either way, I can´t get that sodded tune out of my head now; thanks, Caz!

I was thinking The Animals, Fish.

And just the one beast, in particular.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2FT4FprxDg

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"why would he fret over whether he had left her dead or only 'for dead', or badly wounded, as long as he was on his toes in a Mitre Sq direction before she or anyone else could raise the alarm? Equally, if somebody could have exited the club 'seconds after the cut', you've just provided Jack with the perfect reason for not hanging around with the body."

Useful point, to at least some extent, of course - had in not been for the other four victims. In them cases, he did not seem very much intent on the casual lazy sweep of the blade.

Plus, let´s not forget that IF a killer left Stride in a position where she could communicate in some fashion, he always stood the risk of her providing a possy with the occasional "He went THAT way", which could have spelt disaster for our cutter. Ensuring immediate death would be a major calling card for any calculating killer.

In the end, Caz, whichever way we turn things here, we are always going to end up with a deed in Berner Street that differed very much from the other four. And we will always have the plight to explain why a man who consistently succumbed to his fetiche killing manners, if you like, in Durward Street, Hanbury Street, Mitre Square and Miller´s Court, did NOT do so in Berner Street.
"He was not a robot, and it could have been one of a thousand reasons" is what I´m told. And at the same time people are whispering in my ear that BS man, if he was an aquintance, would NEVER have killed silently, would NEVER have satisfied himself with just the one cut, would ABSOLUTELY have yelled and kicked Stride about in the yard, for THAT IS WHAT DOMESTIC KILLINGS LOOK LIKE!

The truth is, as I am sure you will appreciate, that my demand for a consistent killer in Berner Street has a good deal more going for it than anybody elses demand that a domestic killing is always carboncopy stuff.

"There is a perception here that Jack would never, or could never have killed on the spur of the moment, or without the guaranteed opportunity to consummate the deed with a bit of trademark mutilation."

It is a suggestion that has a good deal going for it, Caz. And there is no need to believe that for example Nichols was NOT a spur-of-the-moment thing, actually. Could well have been, for all we know!

But how do we know this?

Because we take a look at what happened in the other cases where we perceive Jack´s hand. If we have four such other cases (and we do, luckily), and if there was mutilation in one of them cases, we realize that mutilation is such a rare thing that we may be dealing with the same killer when it reoccurs. If there is mutilation in two of the cases, we tend to think that the killer likes such things. Three cases of mutilation will make us think that the act carries great significance for him. When we have four out of four, then every unaccounted for mutilation deed in the vicinity must be regarded as a very probable deed by our man. If there are elements that are very consistent, like for example a cut to the neck that travels extremely deep, then we have what must be regarded as a clincher up to the moment that such a thing can be disproven.
If, on the other hand, victims are found that do not display these particular traits, and who are murdered with a very common type of weapon (the most common in them days, actually), then the obvious deduction must be that there is a very significant possibility that our man did NOT do the job. And if, with such a victim, it can be proven that the weapon was used in a fashion that does NOT tally with the manner in which our boy performed in his perceived deeds, than such a thing would clearly point the finger AWAY from him.

This is how we know, Caz, and do not tell me that it is an unexpected answer!

"It's funny how those who lack the imagination to see why he might have killed Stride ..."

Steady on, Caz! Keeping in mind that Stride was very little questioned as a Ripper victim in spite of all the inherent differences involved in her death, I fail to see that those who challenge the vulgar wiew are the ones who lack imagination! My conviction represents a lot more fresh blood (if you excuse the pun) than yours, if you allow me to say so!

"I was thinking The Animals, Fish. "

Aha. So you go with the old interpretation there too?

All the best, Caz!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your full explanation. I'm sorry for doubting that you were serious.

You are certainly not alone when it comes to being infected by the bug, and being so sure you have identified the killer of two or more of the Whitechapel victims, that for you there have to be alternative explanations for the murders this individual could not have committed. Everyone else has the luxury of finding any or all of those explanations unconvincing. But you don't, if you are now making sense of anything that keeps your theory afloat, and unable to make sense of anything that would sink it, regardless of plausibility.

Hi Fish,

As I said, I don't envy those who give themselves the task of finding a motive and another killer for Stride, and making a good case out of it, when I just see the beast of Mitre Square and can imagine him an hour or so earlier, seeing an opportunity - no motive necessary.

At least you can see the beast too, although you see him anywhere but Berner St at that time. Others are not so fortunate and can't see him at all. So they are destined to account for all these dead women in stranger and stranger ways.

Colin's figures indicate that in 1888, the number of female cut throat murders in the whole of England (including the WMs) suddenly and very unusually went up by six. Do the math.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

backward

Hello Caz. Thank you for the kind remarks.

Are you ready for some irony? Your take on my take makes sense--especially for the average person. But, alas!, backward chap that I am, I arrived at my views in reverse order. I reasoned that C3-C5 were done by a different hand and for different reasons. It was AFTER this that I wondered who had killed Polly and Annie and why he had desisted. So it was only then that I hit on JI and pursued his records. They furnished a good deal MORE that I had hoped or imagined.

Now if only my other investigation is as fruitful.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Lynn,
I won't comment on your disbelief about the existence of the Ripper, but I enjoyed your little identify-the guests'-signatures-quizz on the Kaufman thread, where, by the way, I got the result “Good. You may need some help constructing a bomb though.“, which is completely accurate (pertaining to the bomb)! As for the Wescott-quizz in the same thread, I'm tempted to answer “Tumblety“, which is probably a silly, uninformed newbie answer.
What I wanted to ask pertaining to your research on Israel Schwartz, did you look up his address in a census pertaining to 1888, and did you look up any Whitechapel synagogues records (if existing)? Is he listed anywhere together with other members of the IWMC?

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Maria. I don't think there were censuses in off years. Wish there had been.

I think there is an Israel Schwartz in the 1891 census. I believe there is a thread to this effect.

I have seen no synagogue records, but the Jewish Standard can be helpful on this count. You will see references galore to Martin Kosminski and a young pianist named Jessie Kosminski. But no sign of Aaron or Israel Schwartz. (Interestingly, there is a donation by A. Kosminski.)

I cannot find any records for the IWMEC--but the thought makes me lust in my heart.

A virtually untapped gold mine for information concerning socialists is to be found at the IISG in Amsterdam. Wish I could pop round there, but my teaching schedule won't allow that. Do you head that way?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Lynn, (hey, I like the “respondeo quod“! You really keep it simple.)
I was afraid that there would be no census for 1888, and I knew that records for the IWMC wouldn't be easy to find. Do you happen to know if William Wess has had antecedents?
I don't suppose that this young pianist named Jessie Kosminski and that Martin Kosminski were related to the Aaron Kozminskis? Is the donation by A. Kosminski a significant amount? Oh, and by the way, Rob House is finishing up a book on Kozminski and might know more about his family.
What is exactly the IISG? International-I?-Socialists'-G(athering)?! As for Amsterdam, sorry, I'm not heading there anytime soon, and I don't know any colleagues there who might be able to help. What about looking online for Jewish institutions, then writing to the local librarians? By the way, I'm supposed to go to Brussels for research, probably in early 2012. If you need anything from there, or from Paris, Berlin, or Chicago... (I'll be in Chicago normally in the fall/winter quarters of 2011/2012.)

[mariab]

Lynn, this is what The Echo of october 1st published pertaining to William Wess'es claim (but I'm sure you're already very familiar with this report):
A MAN PURSUED. - SAID TO BE THE MURDERER.
In the course of conversation (says the journalist) the secretary mentioned the fact that the murderer had no doubt been disturbed in his work, as about a quarter to one o'clock on Sunday morning he was seen- or, at least, a man whom the public prefer to regard as the murderer- being chased by another man along Fairclough-street, which runs across Berner-street close to the Club, and which is intersected on the right by Providence-street, Brunswick-street, and Christian-st., and on the left by Batty-street and Grove-street, the [two latter?] [?] up into Commercial-road. The man pursued escaped, however, and the secretary of the Club cannot remember the name of the man who gave chase, but he is not a member of their body. Complaint is also made [?] [?] [?] there was experienced in obtaining a policeman, and it is alleged that from the time the body was discovered fifteen minutes had elapsed before a constable could be [?] from Commercial-road. This charge against the police, however, requires confirmation.

[lynn cates]

reserach

Hello Maria.

"Do you happen to know if William Wess has had antecedents?"

I'm not sure what you mean? At the club? With respect to the Arbeter Fraint?

"I don't suppose that this young pianist named Jessie Kosminski and that Martin Kosminski were related to the Aaron Kozminskis?"

Now that is something many of us would love to know.

"Is the donation by A. Kosminski a significant amount?"

For the time, yes. And that seems to militate against Aaron.

"What is exactly the IISG? International-I?-Socialists'-G(athering)?!"

It means Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis (English: International Institute for Social History)

Here is their website:

http://www.iisg.nl/

"What about looking online for Jewish institutions, then writing to the local librarians?"

There's a thought. You might try subscribing to the Jewish Chronicle--but they are a tad expensive.

"By the way, I'm supposed to go to Brussels for research, probably in early 2012. If you need anything from there, or from Paris, Berlin, or Chicago... "

I thank you.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Maria. Thanks for posting that. If you look carefully at the charge leveled against the police, what does it imply time wise?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn Cates wrote:
Thanks for posting that. If you look carefully at the charge leveled against the police, what does it imply time wise?
Yes, I know. Still, a time lapse for the (very understandably) upset club members to “set the record straight“ doesn't necessarily imply that Schwartz's testimony was fabricated.
About Schwartz, do you recall where the Israel Schwartz mentioned in the 1891 census resided? (I promise to look up the thread you mentioned pertaining to this.) It would be of benefit to check the last censuses previous to 1891 and to 1888, to cross-reference if an Israel Schwartz is mentioned, and if the address is the same as in 1891. Or, what about the theaters? Is Schwartz mentioned in the papers (including Der Arbeter Fraint) as having participated in local productions as an actor, to see if he was gainfully engaged?
I referred to William Wess having had antecedents as in family, in the off-chance that any materials might be left in someone's attic. I know, it's a very long shot...
No time right now to check the Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis' web page, but I will at some point. Next time school is out, would you consider going to Amsterdam? I've never been there either, but I'd very much like to see the Anne Frank house, the Rembrandts, plus there's the legalized weed cafés, and the hookers in plate glass windows... ( just kidding: no interest whatsoever in drugs or prostitutes on my side – I think...)
By the by, do you have any idea of where I could buy the JtR Whitechapel Map 1888 and its accompanying JtR Whitechapel 1888 Booklet today? It's out of supply on all amazon sites, ABE Books, ebay, etc.. I've emailed Geoff at RipperArt (from a link posted on casebook in 2005!), but no reply yet... I'll even try the British bookstore Brentano's here in my Paris neighbourhood tomorrow, but with not much hope.
Back to work with the sources to the Finale I from Rossini's Le comte Ory, of which I'm reconstructing the different versions (with all the sources I've discovered here, but silly Bibliothèque de l'Opéra takes FOREVER to churn out the orchestral materials I desperately need to peruse for this Finale I and for other pieces, to be able to fully reconstruct the early version. I'm sick and tired of sitting there doing OTHER work, waiting for my sources, while the aids supposed to fetch them take long smoking breaks! Stupid French nochalance's getting on my nerves! )