Arbeter Fraint's Take

[Wickerman]

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.

Thankyou Caz.
Its not like that possibility had not crossed my mind, though I have never seen that in print anywhere. I would've expected Packer to have mentioned selling both that night if that had truly been the case.
Who knows, if Packers police statement had survived we'd have had a better handle on what he really said to them.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

language

Hello Rob, Maria, Errata. Hungarian is more like Finnish and possibly Basque because those are the only 3 European languages which are not Indo-European family. They are all Dravidian languages.

Schwartz is given as Hungarian. Conjecture on various threads include:

1. Austro-Hungarian. In that case, he might speak low German.

2. A Schwartz was found who was Polish and might fit our Schwartz.

3. A Schwartz was found who was Russian and might fit our Schwartz.

Did Schwartz have a link to the club? No evidence at this time. I was hoping that Wess might give a clue in that regard. Not a peep.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Christer. Thanks. I had forgotten that one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dates

Hello Debs. Surely, between those two dates?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

account

Hello Maria. But I encourage almost ANY talk insofar as it pertains to an eyewitness account.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

breath

Hello Jon. Oddly, they ARE effective for the breath--if you can stand them.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

As for the Star mentioning a Hungarian speaking journalist instead of a Yiddish speaking one, yes, I've found this surprising myself since the first time I saw it. Please notice though that the Star itself says that the journalist was hardly well acquainted with the Hungarian language and encountered great communication problems with Schwartz. Just ask Gareth Williams if you don't believe me that Hungarian's a BITCH. I'm multilingual, and I stayed a month in Poland (researching the Meyerbeer autographs), and I understood the basics. I've often watched movies in Romanian (which is very Italian-like), I understood it fine. I watch a movie in Hungarian (like, say, Meeting Venus), not a frickin' godamn syllable.

That's because Hungarian is closer to Finnish that any of it's neighboring languages. Why? I don't know.

But while Yiddish was a lingua franca amongst the Jews in London, they didn't all speak the same dialect. Russian, Polish, etc. spoke Litvish, which is really the only surviving dialect today, but Hungarians spoke Polyish. Never having heard Polyish, I can't really say how understandable it might have been to someone who spoke Litvish, but given that it's written in the Hebrew alphabet, the consonants of any given word would likely be the same, but the vowels would be different. Now that's something that people have an easier time decoding when reading, and a much harder time decoding while listening. Especially if someone was speaking quickly. So a Yiddish translator might have actually been harder to find than a Hungarian one.

[mariab]

In my perception I see “minimalist Ripperology“ in the same fashion as minimalist art, that is, when Ripperologists economically choose to stay with the facts and ONLY the facts. Which is essentially the best thing ever, unless when it becomes a tiny bit sterile and intolerant of creativity (for lack of a better word).

Can't wait for the outcome.

Don't hold your breath too much though Rob, cuz (as you very well know) the sources to this case are not exactly abundant. In the worst case scenario, if my research remains unfruitful, the piece will remain, err, speculative.

Really, then how do you explain this from 'The Star', which you put so much faith in?
"The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English,..."
You can answer it all in your article if you want, so we don't hijack this thread further.

First of all, I put much LESS faith in the Star than in the Swanson report. BUT the question of Schwartz' veracity has been raised in the Star, and we cannot simply ignore this fact. Combine this with the fact that Schwartz (probably) was missing from the inquest and we have already muddled up waters. I'm still pondering on this, I have several interpretations for this, and I think it's be best if we discussed this further privately, plus I'd like to ask your opinion about some things pertaining to the police and research.
As for the Star mentioning a Hungarian speaking journalist instead of a Yiddish speaking one, yes, I've found this surprising myself since the first time I saw it. Please notice though that the Star itself says that the journalist was hardly well acquainted with the Hungarian language and encountered great communication problems with Schwartz. Just ask Gareth Williams if you don't believe me that Hungarian's a BITCH. I'm multilingual, and I stayed a month in Poland (researching the Meyerbeer autographs), and I understood the basics. I've often watched movies in Romanian (which is very Italian-like), I understood it fine. I watch a movie in Hungarian (like, say, Meeting Venus), not a frickin' godamn syllable.

[Rob Clack]

Working on this. The parallels and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming though.

Can't wait for the outcome.

Who said I'm an expert? I'm learning.

You wouldn't have thought so from what you have been saying.

[QUOTE=mariab;213138]
Possibly both[QUOTE=mariab;213138]

You've lost me on this one.

The overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his behaviour during the investigation?

Doubt it, but I'll reserve judgement till your article comes out.

Well, yes. But let's not highjack this thread until my article is out (in several months).

I'll give you several months to work that one out.

Jesus Rob, didn't I just explain in my post #408 that Yiddish in Victorian Whitechapel (and elsewhere) 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.
Just ask Gareth Williams or Lynn if you don't buy it from me.

Really, then how do you explain this from 'The Star', which you put so much faith in?

"The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English,..."

You can answer it all in your article if you want, so we don't hijack this thread further.

Rob

[ChrisGeorge]

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

Hi all

I agree that it's all too possible in this case to make up theories and then try to make the facts fit those theories. We can only deduce so much from the eyewitness testimony and police and inquest reports. It is not productive to construct elaborate theories of what might have happened if there is no evidence to back it up. So I agree with points made by Caz and Rob Clack.

Best regards

Chris

[mariab]

Was the Schwartz anarchist orator the same as Israel Schwartz? Not likely.

Working on this. The parallels and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming though.

Very impressive but nothing there that would make you an expert on Victorian Politics in Londons East End.

Who said I'm an expert? I'm learning.

So are you saying it was Le Grand or one of his minions?

Possibly both.

And who says Le Grand was involved at that stage?

The overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his behaviour during the investigation?

And when you say 'Star' witness, do you mean the one you say fabricated his story? And gave a description of Le Grand in the process?

Well, yes. But let's not highjack this thread until my article is out (in several months).

Schwartz was Hungarian, Wess didn't speak Hungarian. You work it out.

Jesus Rob, didn't I just explain in my post #408 that Yiddish in Victorian Whitechapel (and elsewhere) 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.
Just ask Gareth Williams or Lynn if you don't buy it from me.

[Rob Clack]

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?

Oh dear. Was it mentioned in the Police Files that Schwartz was disbelieved? No. Was the Schwartz anarchist orator the same as Israel Schwartz? Not likely.

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.

Very impressive but nothing there that would make you an expert on Victorian Politics in Londons East End.

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?

So are you saying it was Le Grand or one of his minions? And who says Le Grand was involved at that stage? There is no evidence to suggest he didn't get involved until October. And when you say 'Star' witness, do you mean the one you say fabricated his story? And gave a description of Le Grand in the process?

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.

Schwartz was Hungarian, Wess didn't speak Hungarian. You work it out.

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.

You read an awful lot into what is very little.

I mentioned SPE, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Debs, and Chris Phillips. Are you offended to be counted among them?

No I don't think you should be name dropping all these people and all these people contribute to the case in different ways.

Rob

[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.

[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

[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