Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Cogidubnus]

Schwartz

Of course he existed, there is no doubt about it.
Rob

OK...is there any doubt about him being a genuine witness?

This isn't a trick question or anything like...just a genuine enquiry...

Dave

[Wickerman]

OK...is there any doubt about him being a genuine witness?

This isn't a trick question or anything like...just a genuine enquiry...

Dave

Dave.
We only have one press report of his story which differs from Swanson's summary of the police report. Abberline interviewed Schwartz and gave some minor observations. Beyond that we have one small press suggestion in the Star that the police have reason to doubt the truth of the story.

You payes your money and you takes your choice..

When we have a witness who does not speak English, who needs an interpreter, there will always be questions as to exactly "who's" story are we getting?
The Witness?
The Interpreter?
The Press?
Or, a combination of all three?

Schwartz is a German/Jewish name, which means Black. Was this his real name?, or was it Anglisized from a foreign original?
There are several different ways to spell Schwartz on the continent:
Quote:
As an example, consider the name Schwarz (standard German spelling). It can appear in various documents as Schwartz (alternate German spelling), Shwartz, Shvartz and Shvarts (Anglicized spellings), Szwarc (Polish), Szwartz (blended German-Polish), Şvarţ (Romanian), Svarc (Hungarian), Chvarts (French), Chvartz (blended French-German), Шварц (modern Russian), Шварцъ (Russian before 1918), שברץ and שורץ (Hebrew), and שווארץ (Yiddish).

His name may even have been shortened from Schwartzman or Schwartzkopf, or some other example.

There was an Israel Schwartz found at 22 Samuel Street, I can't seem to locate the thread but his movements from 1881 through to 1911 on census records were captured somewhere on Casebook.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Hi all, apologies for the late response, I was asleep for 17 hours straight (!!), didn't hear my cell phone alarm ringing and people texting me on my cell right next to me, woke up short before 1.00 a.m., in the process of having a professionally related nightmare (as in dream), lol.

What you are doing is speculating without any facts to back up your conclusions. I rarely do that and don't often post them.

As I think I've mentioned, I'm still researching a host of details on this. I've been researching this for the better part of a year, I still have TONS of things to look into, and I'm not in a hurry to come forward with the article, despite it been for the most part already written. If I end up not finding the answers I'm seeking (which it would be due to the evidence not existing anymore, not due to lack of my research capabilities), the article's title will be something like "A theory on the events on Berner Street. A highly speculative piece".

I was talking about the Areter Fraint article. No mention of Schwartz anywhere. If he was a club member then there would be mention in the article of him and what he saw that night.

But Rob, don't you see? If Schwartz' was a fabricated story, as at the moment I tend to suspect that it was, then the AF had ALL the reasons in the world to NOT wanting to associate Schwartz' "testimony" with their Club. Even in The Echo interview Wess prominently says he "doesn't think that the man involved in the incident is a member of our Club, not sure at all what happened but heard rumors, bla bla." I called you a "minimalist", Rob, cuz in this instance you're sticking to the surface. This is Victorian politics at work here, and one has to read between the lines and look behind the scenes.

I think there is a possibility BS man was a club member who was evicting Stride from the premises, things got out of hand and he cut her throat. That's just my opinion.

I think I've already told you before that I completely agree that the evicting Stride part out of the Club might be one of several possibilities, esp. if part of Schwartz' testimony is true. The other possibility in my (informed) opinion is, BS might have been one of Le Grand's minions.
As for an IWEC member having killed Stride, I hope for the sake of things that you were just joking, Rob.

Since you know a lot about Wess, how good was his Hungarian?

Don't know even a 30% of what I'd like to know about him, I'm still researching him. But I can tell you one thing with almost absolute certainty: Hungarian is one of the MOST difficult European languages to learn (together with Finnish), and unlike Polish or Romanian, it's not related at all to the Slavic or Latin tongues. That's why Yiddish was used as a lingua franca* between Jews of different provenance to communicate between each other with ease. You can rest assured that all IWEC members were speaking in Yiddish to each other.
*Lingua franca is a tongue derivative of other Latin tongues (Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) invented by European sailors in the 16th/17th century to communicate with each other. Lingua franca was also used a lot in the theater in the 17th/18th century (also by Molière, Goldoni, Rossini) for comic effect.
Lynn will back me up here, as Gareth Williams would, if he were here.

There was a clubman (name escapes me at the moment) who took his girlfriend home and returned to the club around that time.

Like Lynn said, this was Morris Eagle.

I think the way minimalist was used came across to me as a bit derogatory.

Not really. Just frustrated that (in this instance) you're taking a newspaper report at face value without wondering who published it and in which circumstances.

Maria,
This trend you have adopted from Tom, the use of labels to describe researchers, it smacks of pigeonholed thinking, the irony.
Its the 'minimalists' that keep this case on the straight and narrow. The 'minimalists' keep it within the realms of reality and not into your domain of the 'fantasists'.

All legitimate disciplines have minimalists, theorists & synthesists.

I did adopt the "term" (not label) from Tom, though he may as well have adopted it from someone else himself. This is not "pigeonholing", it's analyzing Ripperology (Meta-Ripperology if you wish.) And I DO completely agree that it's the minimalists who keep the case on the ground, as we do indeed have too many phantasists and conspiracy theorists around and on the boards. In my perception, Rob, Debs, and Chris Phillips are the hardliners of minimalist Ripperology, almost always “taking the fifth“ about expressing a theory of their own. (Though as you mentioned between you and Rob, privately it could be another matter, plus I have the feeling that Chris Phillips might be a Kozminski-phile deep inside, lol.) Then we have people like you (Monty), SPE, Rob House, Paul Begg, Martin Fido etc., who are still totally based on facts and reality but are at times open to express and revise a theory or to accept other people expressing theories, lol. I see myself as a "synthesist", someone who's based on evidence and research but is willing to interprete the more complex side of things (in this istance, the political/social realities of the case as brought in by the involvement of the anarchists and the Jews in the Double Event). I'd count in Tom as a "synthesist" as well, despite of the fact that of lately he's been too lazy to conduct research, lol. Then there are the 3 conspiracists (shall I name them?) who believe in the Ripper as a “construct“ (of several killers), and the peeps like Trevor Marriott who believe in organ harvesting (but are still able to conduct useful research with the SB files, though I know that many here will disagree). As it is, even Meta-Ripperology is not always just black or white.

A grapestalk was found supposedly in the drain in DY, by an ex convict, thief, confidence trickster and blackmailer posing as a private detective, himself suspected as being Jack the Ripper by a Scotland Yard detective. This happened days after news about Liz holding grapes had been circulated. ...just to keep things in perspective. How reliable could anything that man produced in evidence be?
I do accept Phillips may have been being cautious in his wording because he was not 100 percent sure about whether he saw grape flesh or not, although I did post the excerpt to show that grape flesh may not have been as invisible to the naked eye in the stomach contents as some were suggesting, especially if Liz was eating the grapes close to the time of her death as suggested by her having them in her hand.

I wish that this would settle the grapes matter once and for all, but I know that some people are VERY stubborn, even in the face of logic and evidence.
It's a real shame that Wicks choses to remain so grape-oriented, cuz otherwise he's a fine connoisseur of the case, and has been contributing a lot of important info and analysis (see the Tabram and Chapman threads for evidence of this).

Hello Debs. Thanks, but you may be preaching to the choir. In my puny mind, no grapes, no malted liquor mean just that.

Thank God for this Lynn, cuz I was really starting to think you're about to lose your mind here with your encourageing of all the silly grape talk.

[Wickerman]

Dave.
This is what I was looking for...

http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=156738&postcount=18

Regards, Jon S.

[Roy Corduroy]

BS might have been one of Le Grand's minions.

But Le Grand came on the scene after the Double Event.

Roy

[Cogidubnus]

Excellent Jon...thank you!

Dave

[Debra A]

They were known as "Imps" when I was a kid, small, black & nearly blew your head off!
Though I thought what Stride had were larger? you'd never see Imps in the dark,.....like the grapes

Regards, Jon S.

Ah, Imps. I remember those! I kinda liked the 'blow your head off' sensation!
I imagined them to be lozenges or something that size.

[Debra A]

But Le Grand came on the scene after the Double Event.

Roy

Funny you should mention that, Roy.
Just the other day I was going over some old newspaper snippets I had on Grande and noticed that in one of them, James Hall, Grande's clerk, gave two dates concerning Grande's working as a private inquiry agent:



I'm not sure if he meant Grande worked between these two dates, or just in these two particular months. Oct 88 obviously is work with the WVC, June 1889 would fit in with his watching M.P. Justin McCarthy.
Although I must add that Grande did run an ad from at least as early as June 88, as discovered by Lynn.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Who knows how many cachous it contained, or their size."

Abraham Heshburg! He said they were six or seven, I believe. And if kept in a doubled-up tissue paper, they could easily have stayed inbetween the thumb and forefinger, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Debs, might I inquire if the James Hall newspaper snippet is from during his own trial? Thank you.

[Debra A]

It's from Hall's evidence at Grande's 1891 blackmail trial.

[mariab]

Oh, OK. Thank you so much Debs.

[Rob Clack]

But Rob, don't you see? If Schwartz' was a fabricated story, as at the moment I tend to suspect that it was, then the AF had ALL the reasons in the world to NOT wanting to associate Schwartz' "testimony" with their Club. Even in The Echo interview Wess prominently says he "doesn't think that the man involved in the incident is a member of our Club, not sure at all what happened but heard rumors, bla bla." I called you a "minimalist", Rob, cuz in this instance you're sticking to the surface. This is Victorian politics at work here, and one has to read between the lines and look behind the scenes.

There's no evidence to suggest Schwartzs story was fabricated. No evidence that Schwartz had any links to the club. It's all pure speculation and you have no evidence to back up your speculation. Reading between lines is a cop out. He could have done this, he could have done that.
Don't talk to me about Victorian Politics, what do you know about it? Have you even read "East End 1888" or "East End Jewish Radicals"?

I think I've already told you before that I completely agree that the evicting Stride part out of the Club might be one of several possibilities, esp. if part of Schwartz' testimony is true. The other possibility in my (informed) opinion is, BS might have been one of Le Grand's minions.
As for an IWEC member having killed Stride, I hope for the sake of things that you were just joking, Rob.

That's guesswork and not informed opinion. Your confusing the two. There's no evidence that Le Grand or any of his minions were anywhere near Berner Street that night.
Why should I be joking? It's perfectly feasible, fits in with what facts we have, and a lot more feasible then what you have said.

Don't know even a 30% of what I'd like to know about him, I'm still researching him. But I can tell you one thing with almost absolute certainty: Hungarian is one of the MOST difficult European languages to learn (together with Finnish), and unlike Polish or Romanian, it's not related at all to the Slavic or Latin tongues. That's why Yiddish was used as a lingua franca* between Jews of different provenance to communicate between each other with ease. You can rest assured that all IWEC members were speaking in Yiddish to each other.
*Lingua franca is a tongue derivative of other Latin tongues (Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) invented by European sailors in the 16th/17th century to communicate with each other. Lingua franca was also used a lot in the theater in the 17th/18th century (also by Molière, Goldoni, Rossini) for comic effect.
Lynn will back me up here, as Gareth Williams would, if he were here.

Well reading between the lines then I would say it is impossible for Wess to have been Schwartzs translator. So that theory is out of the window then.

Like Lynn said, this was Morris Eagle.

Thanks I did read his post.

Not really. Just frustrated that (in this instance) you're taking a newspaper report at face value without wondering who published it and in which circumstances.

Haven't got the instructions on how to suck eggs have you?
Perhaps you should do what I do, take all the information available and draw conclusions from that, and not selective newspapers that fit or in this case don't fit your theory.

I did adopt the "term" (not label) from Tom, though he may as well have adopted it from someone else himself. This is not "pigeonholing", it's analyzing Ripperology (Meta-Ripperology if you wish.) And I DO completely agree that it's the minimalists who keep the case on the ground, as we do indeed have too many phantasists and conspiracy theorists around and on the boards. In my perception, Rob, Debs, and Chris Phillips are the hardliners of minimalist Ripperology, almost always “taking the fifth“ about expressing a theory of their own. (Though as you mentioned between you and Rob, privately it could be another matter, plus I have the feeling that Chris Phillips might be a Kozminski-phile deep inside, lol.) Then we have people like you (Monty), SPE, Rob House, Paul Begg, Martin Fido etc., who are still totally based on facts and reality but are at times open to express and revise a theory or to accept other people expressing theories, lol. I see myself as a "synthesist", someone who's based on evidence and research but is willing to interprete the more complex side of things (in this istance, the political/social realities of the case as brought in by the involvement of the anarchists and the Jews in the Double Event). I'd count in Tom as a "synthesist" as well, despite of the fact that of lately he's been too lazy to conduct research, lol. Then there are the 3 conspiracists (shall I name them?) who believe in the Ripper as a “construct“ (of several killers), and the peeps like Trevor Marriott who believe in organ harvesting (but are still able to conduct useful research with the SB files, though I know that many here will disagree). As it is, even Meta-Ripperology is not always just black or white.

Jesus what a load of waffle. I think you will find I have been studying this case a lot longer than 95% of the people you have mentioned here.

Rob

[caz]

Hi All,

I may have been among the first to use the term 'minimalist ripperology', but it was most certainly not aimed at brilliant researchers like Debs, Rob Clack or Chris Phillips, who just bring us the fruits (no, not the grapes) and tend not to be drawn into the area of speculation unless they can back it up very strongly.

It was aimed at certain posters (Perry Mason was one I recall) with pet theories based on a rejection of pretty much everything not carved in stone, and even on some of the things that pretty much are. They would reject the idea of a serial killer, or that any of the victims were prostitutes, or were soliciting before being murdered - that sort of thing. In short, their theories simply wouldn't work if they rejected the wrong thing.

For Wickerman: I don't suppose it matters if there were grapes or not, but I seem to recall seeing a reference to Packer selling sweetmeats as well, so it's possible the cachous came from his shop, even if Stride wasn't there when he sold them.

Love,

Caz
X

[mariab]

Wow, cool that Caz was the "inventor“ of the term “minimalist Ripperology“ (even if initially used in a whole another meaning).

There's no evidence to suggest Schwartzs story was fabricated. No evidence that Schwartz had any links to the club.

Huh? Like the Star report mentioning that the police disbelieved Schwartz? The Schwartz anarchist orator I've discovered in 1902-1905 who was tight with William Wess and was “Polish/Hungarian“ with limited English capabilities?

Don't talk to me about Victorian Politics, what do you know about it? Have you even read "East End 1888" or "East End Jewish Radicals"?

Those two you've mentioned are on my reading list, plus I've read Fishman, Butterworth, Rocker, Campbell. And I'm just starting out. Plus I'm a historian specialized in music and French history of politics, specialized also in Jewish composers of the 19th century, as you very well know, Rob.

There's no evidence that Le Grand or any of his minions were anywhere near Berner Street that night.

Apart from his physical description being mentioned at the murder scene by the star witness? And Le Grand doing EVERYTHING that he could and then some to fabricate witnesses and obstruct the investigation?

Well reading between the lines then I would say it is impossible for Wess to have been Schwartzs translator. So that theory is out of the window then.

Just because you're saying it, Rob? You need to prove this, or at least give a justification for your coming to such a conclusion.

and not selective newspapers that fit or in this case don't fit your theory.

I happen to find it VERY significant that ONLY selective newspapers mentioned the Schwartz story, and this fact totally fits with him (probably) not having appeared at the inquest. Incidentally, all these circumstantial facts prove my theory.

I think you will find I have been studying this case a lot longer than 95% of the people you have mentioned here.

I mentioned SPE, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Debs, and Chris Phillips. Are you offended to be counted among them?
Really, I don't know what's up with you today, Rob.