A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Tom_Wescott]

I started a thread years ago about the Echo report when it was new, but it appears to have disappeared as I can't find it. It contained the missing snippets from the article.

In any event, there is not question but that it's a garbled account of the Schwartz event.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Or that the Schwartz story was a garbled version of the club secretary's account.

Also, the club secretary had to have somehow recognised the man whose name he could not remember, for you cannot forget the name of someone you have never seen before.

Whichever way you cut it the key point to bear in mind is that both events took place at around 12.45 am.

The timing is everything.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates writes:

"I leave it to all and sundry to suggest why:

1. If it's the murderer being chased, it's likely NOT a corroboration of IS's story.

2. This sounds suspicious. ("Yes, the murderer was chased, but the man lost him." "Who was the man?" "Umm, er, I forgot his name." "Club member?" Gulp. "Definitely not.")

It would of course NOT have been the murderer being chased, Lynn - that was just an assumption on behalf of the observer, whoever that was. The only reasonable suggestion is that it was Schwartz leading the way down Fairclough Street, Pipeman following in his heels. And if it was not the murderer at front, then there is no reason to assume that man number two (Pipeman) was giving chase - he may just as well have been running away from the scene outside the yard.

As for the second point you are making, it would seem that you are trying to press the point that the chaser would have been a club member, something that Wess took care to conceal. If so, Lynn, why did Wess bring the whole thing up in front of the reporter/s at all? He could just as well have kept his mouth shut.

No, Lynn, in this case, if it walks like a duck ... the corroboration is there, and I see no need to add any odd elements to it in such a case.

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Fish.

"why did Wess bring the whole thing up in front of the reporter/s at all?"

I would humbly suggest that it was merely a concoction--of a piece with the Schwartz story--to take any possible heat off the club. Notice the great care taken that:

1. Yes, this fellow (the murderer?) was chased.

2. The chaser was not one of ours.

Why the insistence and the forgetting his name? In my humble opinion to make it harder to trace this imaginary chap. If The Echo or SY look too closely, they may figure out that they've been had.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

Or that the Schwartz story was a garbled version of the club secretary's account.

Also, the club secretary had to have somehow recognised the man whose name he could not remember, for you cannot forget the name of someone you have never seen before.

Whichever way you cut it the key point to bear in mind is that both events took place at around 12.45 am.

The timing is everything.

We must tread carefully here. This story and the Schwartz story clearly share the same original source, therefore one cannot be said to corroborate the other as to the time.

Wess is referring to Schwartz when he says he knew the man's name but (conveniently) forgot it, and he was being honest when he said (with a careful choice of words) that Schwartz was not a member of their club. Only 15% of their supporters were actual members, and I'm sure Schwartz was not a financial supporter, but was what I call an attendee of the club.

I believe Schwartz lived at the Berner Street club until the day of the murder and also believe that William Wess may have acted as interpreter between Schwartz and the police, as he did at the same police station for Leon Goldstein.

If Schwartz can be shown to be affiliated with Wess or the club then we have grounds for suggesting he would have lied to protect the club, who found themselves in a very sticky situation when a gentile woman showed up dead in their yard. One might call it suspect that Schwartz's two suspects were a Norseman/Irishman (Pipeman, depending on the source, and an anti-Semite (BS Man).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"Wess is referring to Schwartz when he says he knew the man's name but (conveniently) forgot it"

If Schwartz overtook Pipeman as he rounded the corner of Berner and Fairclough you may be correct. But we know that Schwartz claimed to have stayed ahead of his pursuer and eventually left him behind. And what the Echo report says is that the man WHO GAVE CHASE was the guy whose name Wess had forgotten, and that man would not be Schwartz, would it?

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Hello all.
I'm back from the movies. The killer inside me, which, after massive forwarnings about the “extreme violence“ and prepared for the worst, it came out anticlimatic and a total borefest. I love old noir, such as Chinatown, or even The postman always rings twice. But Winterbottom ain't Raffelson or Polansky. I imagine that in the Thompson book the “hardboiled“ 1950s dialogue comes off as hilarious and nihilistic, but in the movie it made me wince or laugh. Enjoyed the several character-actors in the many parts, though, and got engrossed in admiring all the shiny, well-maintained old cars from the 1950s. And Jessica Alba is super sweet, and not such a bad actress as everyone claims. As for her face having gotten extremely worked in this movie – PHU-LEAZE! I had braced myself for something worse than Mary Kelly, but it was just a black eye and some cuts on a broken jaw. Tons of surfers (not to mention boxers) get like this after eating their board. Like last time I tore my lip and my thumb fit inside the cut, but it closed by itself half an hour later, with no stiches. But I digress, and many apologies for this.

Simon Wood wrote:
The timing is everything.
I'm afraid in this case it isn't, because we can't really substantiate the time when any of this really occurred. All of it or different parts of it can be at least 10´min. off.

Lynn Cates wrote:
If it's the murderer being chased, it's likely NOT a corroboration of IS's story.
Come on, Lynn, it absolutely wasn't the murderer running!
Lynn Cates wrote:
This sounds suspicious. ("Yes, the murderer was chased, but the man lost him." "Who was the man?" "Umm, er, I forgot his name." "Club member?" Gulp. "Definitely not.")
This makes complete sense if the first man running was Schwartz and the second man running Pipeman. The problematic part comes with William Wess not mentioning Schwartz to the papers as the first man running. This is suspicious. Was Wess simply protecting Schwartz from the press? Or was Schwartz's testimony a total invention, in connection with the IWMC?
Lynn Cates wrote:
I would humbly suggest that it was merely a concoction--of a piece with the Schwartz story--to take any possible heat off the club.
I'm starting to take Lynn's conspiracy theory as a serious possibility!
Simon Wood wrote:
If at 12.45 am there did follow a fifteen-minute delay in finding a policeman [in the circumstances not a glowing PR feather in the Met's cap] it would explain the time of discovery of Stride's body being pushed back to 1.00 am and the consequent legend of mutilatum interruptus.
Conspiracy theory between Wess, Diemshitz, and Schwartz! They must have been totally paranoid and worried for the reputation of their club after finding a stiff inside their yard, and noone had heard anything through the singing, and perhaps Liz was known to club members... Hmmm... (Actually I'm not a great fan of conspiracy theories.)
Fisherman wrote:
If so, Lynn, why did Wess bring the whole thing up in front of the reporter/s at all? He could just as well have kept his mouth shut.
Perhaps he wanted to provide corroboration for Schwartz's story?
Wescott wrote: This story and the Schwartz story clearly share the same original source, therefore one cannot be said to corroborate the other as to the time.

If we look at this rationally, there are just 2 possibilities:
1) Schwartz's story is an invention, and William Wess covered for Schwartz.
2) (This being the most probable possibility): Schwartz's testimony was true, but exaggerated, and William Wess just wanted to protect his friend Schwartz from the press.
It would be of great benefit if further research could provide info pertaining to:
- the reasons why Schwartz was not invited at the Stride inquiry (credibility problem?);
- if we found out more about Schwartz, if he was a law-abiding citizen, how was he off financially, did he really reside at the IWMC, as people assume? In the 1891 census he is listed residing elsewhere. We need to look at the closest census prior to 1888.
- if we could find corroboration of possible candidates for BS and Pipeman (by which I'm also referring to the currently conducted research on Charles Le Grand).
With many apologies for the “pub-talk“-fitted movie-discussion above.

[Tom_Wescott]

If Schwartz overtook Pipeman as he rounded the corner of Berner and Fairclough you may be correct. But we know that Schwartz claimed to have stayed ahead of his pursuer and eventually left him behind. And what the Echo report says is that the man WHO GAVE CHASE was the guy whose name Wess had forgotten, and that man would not be Schwartz, would it?

As I already stated, it's clear the report was garbled. Schwartz was a Berner Street Jewish resident and would have been known to Wess, whereas the identity of Pipeman was not known, so it's rather clear who Wess is referring to when he says he knows the man's name.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

You have me confused with another poster.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

"Actually I'm not a great fan of conspiracy theories."

That's understandable. Not many people do believe in conspiracies, which is why they work so effectively.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Conspiracies

Sorry Simon, I corrected it. Regarding 'conspiracy', many people assume that means numerous people involved all the way up to the highest power, etc., whereas in reality, if the Ripper was a two-man team, then you're dealing with a conspiracy. Conspiracy on the part of the police is evident in the Ripper case numerous times...the one that comes right to mind is the 'pardon' issued after the Kelly murder, which stated there was evidence to suggest an accomplice was used, when in reality there wasn't, they just wanted to appease the people WITHOUT offering a reward.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Lynn,
would you perhaps be willing to look at the closest census PRIOR to 1888 for Israel Schwartz? Were it to turn up that Schwartz already resided at 22, Great Samuel Street (where he's listed in the 1891 census, IF it's indeed him) already prior to 1888, then we'd have evidence that he didn't need to reside at the IWMC in the fall of 1888. On the other side, were we to find that he arrived in London shortly before the fall of 1888, or that he was with no job in 1888, he might have been in need of dwellings at the IWMC.
Do you have the internet link for Victorian London censuses? I'm terribly sorry, but I can't look myself, I'm terribly busy boarding on overwhelmed with the materials I discovered yesterday at the Paris Opéra (for Rossini's opera Le siège de Corinthe, we're talking 13 rolls of microfilm + the original materials to go through), plus I got a French article lacking important sections due for publication very soon.
No news from the Jewish front at Northwestern so far, but the semester hasn't started there yet, so people might be out of town. I'd give them a week or two...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria, all that work has already been done on Schwartz. A likely Israel is in the records, but we can't say for sure it's him. He probably moved to England in 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I know we can't say for sure it's him. (And Schwartz is a super common name.) Were the censuses PRIOR to 1888 also checked? There's a thread on casebook about trying to establish if Schwartz came from Hungary or Poland, or maybe the thread was about Lawende. I'll check it out.
Lynn's checking the local theaters for Schwartz.

[lynn cates]

IS

Hello Maria. I don't think IS was in England in 1881. I tend to agree with Tom that he arrived quite recently.

I am still coming up empty for the theatres. Have found the Lupinos though.

Cheers.
LC