Arbeter Fraint's Take

[lynn cates]

Alimentary, Watson.

Hello Jon. What do you make of the fact that Liz had no "grape" remains in her alimentary canal?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

On (or in) the other hand....

The grapes at the scene may have been no more than two or three, easily unnoticed, as they were bought a good hour before.

Now THAT is a very sound observation...we're all fixated on a whole bunch of grapes when a few left on a stalk might well be lost/trampled when the body is examined and moved...we're led to suspect the body is jostled anyhow, because bleeding apparently went on so long...so just a few grapes left...yes!

Dave

[Wickerman]

Jon:

" this is precisely the conclusion I arrived at"

That´s reassuring! But for the protocol, I would like to add that I think it would have been very odd for a woman in Stride´s economical position to lavish both flowers and "cachous" on herself. Not that we can prove such a thing, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

Christer.

Well, so much for the origin of the cachou's, but the flower & grapes are a different matter.

Stride was said to have possibly been in possession of a few pennies, anywhere from a shilling a few days earlier to a few pence very recently.
As there was digested food in her intestines, she had recently been treated to a meal, or treated herself?

The flower?, yes any client could have bought this. We know she was wearing a Dahlia when she was seen at the Bricklayers Arms, "just before eleven o'clock".
I'm surprised the police hadn't enquired at the Bricklayers Arms to ask if they sold cachou's, or remember selling them to anyone at that hour.
Breath-mints may have been available at pubs, especially for the women.

The grapes at the scene may have been no more than two or three, easily unnoticed, as they were bought a good hour before.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

So, (after much prolonged prognostication), we're right back where AF left us...with the candy (as the translator puts it) clutched in one hand...now do we really feel up to the other?

Dave

[Fisherman]

Jon:

" this is precisely the conclusion I arrived at"

That´s reassuring! But for the protocol, I would like to add that I think it would have been very odd for a woman in Stride´s economical position to lavish both flowers and "cachous" on herself. Not that we can prove such a thing, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Jon:

"Either way Christer, Cachous were not "just" sweets like any boiled sweets you would get in a candy store or sweet shop (in England)."

I can buy that. But some sources say cachous, some say sweetmeats and the Arbeter fraint says candy.
So which was it she held in her hand?

Could it be that "cachous" back then was a name that involved many types of tablets, ranging from strong mints to candy? The real well-known type, the Cachous lajaunie, was not introduced until 1890, and this cachou has somewhat coloured the take on what a cachou is, I think. But it did not apply 1888!

All in all, it will not prove easy to establish what exact type of tablets Stride´s were.

The best,
Fisherman

And this is precisely the conclusion I arrived at, that due to the different names given we are simply are not in a position to know for sure. What we call "cachou" was also known as, Sweet, Candy, Sweetmeat, toffee. They were known in England from at least the 18th century but how to define any difference "back then" is I think beyond our abilities today.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Rest is a couple hours away, lol. (First need to unpack a biggish suitcase and pack a small bag for Paris, then work a bit with my American boss per email, etc..)

When you're back on your feet, please answer me this. On your search for "Schwartz", have you found any document bearing his name for which you know with reasonable certainty is the name of our Israel Schwartz?

There can be NO such thing as certainty here, as generally for most aspects of the Ripper case. There is NO mention of Schwartz whatsoever in the AFs from the relevant dates from 1903/1905, despite the French police reports containing evidence of intense anarchist activity in several London venues and of Schwartz himself co-organizing these things at certain dates. At some point we might manage to get the entire relevant AF issues translated and see if they mention anything relevant cryptically.

What fits with both Schwartzes (from 1888 and from 1902-1905) is the William Wess connection (circumstantial in 1888, documented in 1902-1905), the Polish/Hungarian origins (weirdly mentioned together by the secret French police), the documented lack of capability with the English language, and the pronounced “elusiveness“. Unfortunately the French secret police reports are EXTREMELY scarce, mention only initials of the first name and NO physical description. I've got some candidates I need to look again in the censuses/Jewish databases/naturalization processes and a few ideas on how to research this futher in connection with the anarchists Clubs and with, possibly, London secret police reports, though I don't even know if such reports have survived in the LNA.
By the by, Chris Phillips has located the naturalization act of an Austrian {=possibly Hungarian) Schwartz with only part of the information available presently until the file is declared open for inspection in a couple years.
As for the well-researched Israel Schwartz living at 22 Samuel Street (a couple of hundred yards from the murder site) at the date of the 1891 census he was Polish, not a Hungarian. But there are 2 other, more promising candidates to research whose first names fit with the reports of the French secret police. One of them was documentedly acquainted with the Liberty Hall
(where Schwartz reportedly spoke in 1902/1905), and the other one had a son named Israel.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Either way Christer, Cachous were not "just" sweets like any boiled sweets you would get in a candy store or sweet shop (in England)."

I can buy that. But some sources say cachous, some say sweetmeats and the Arbeter fraint says candy.
So which was it she held in her hand?

Could it be that "cachous" back then was a name that involved many types of tablets, ranging from strong mints to candy? The real well-known type, the Cachous lajaunie, was not introduced until 1890, and this cachou has somewhat coloured the take on what a cachou is, I think. But it did not apply 1888!

All in all, it will not prove easy to establish what exact type of tablets Stride´s were.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Haha! Good one, Jon!

I'm relieved you saw the joke...

But you see, I don´t for a minute think that the "cachous" were breath mints. I think they were what they were described like in the Arbeter Fraint: candy. Sweet, sumptious candy. The tablets were also described as sweetmeats in different sources.

I have also spent no small amount of time in an attempt to identify & establish any differences between Sweetmeats, breath mints, cachous, etc. in 19th century England.

Because there were so many manufacturers of these "candies" there was no common recipe and depending where you lived in the UK would depend on what you called these boiled sweets.
Either way Christer, Cachous were not "just" sweets like any boiled sweets you would get in a candy store or sweet shop (in England).

And surely, Jon, you have heard of the combination of candy and flowers, in relation to gifts given from a man to his fiancée?

Not only heard Christer, I've also provided the same, ....when all else has failed

Strange how the issue of their origin has never consumed investigators at the time, along with our Casebook members, when compared with those damn grapes!

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

about face

Hello Christer. That is an eminently sensible position to take. It explains, perhaps:

1. Why she left Kidney--greener pastures.

2. Why she left her cloth and hymnal to trusted friends.

3. Why she looked spiffy.

4. The sightings with the clerkly looking fellow.

But it cannot explain why he turned on her so quickly.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Maria.
Yes, International travel can really take it out of you, enjoy your rest.

When you're back on your feet, please answer me this.

On your search for "Schwartz", have you found any document bearing his name for which you know with reasonable certainty is the name of our Israel Schwartz?

Thanks, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"The cachous were a gift?
Might I make a suggestion?, the next time you take your significant other out on a 'date', give her a gift of breath mints.
We'll all start a poll on how many days it is before you can walk upright again!
If Stride had been given a "gift" of breath mints, it might be a male body that was found in Berner St."

Haha! Good one, Jon! But you see, I don´t for a minute think that the "cachous" were breath mints. I think they were what they were described like in the Arbeter Fraint: candy. Sweet, sumptious candy. The tablets were also described as sweetmeats in different sources.

And surely, Jon, you have heard of the combination of candy and flowers, in relation to gifts given from a man to his fiancée?

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Yes, that's the well-known Star report. Thanks for posting it here Wickerman. I've been wondering if the second “arrested man on information furnished from another source“ could simply be referring to Leon Goldstein having “turned himself in“ to Leman Street after having been identified by Fanny Mortimer. Presented in a lightly garbled version by the Star.
As for the first “arrested man on the description thus obtained“, Paul Begg in The Facts hypothesized that Pipeman's identity might have been known to the police, but the subsequent official reports and the sustained written communication between Abberline and Swanson make it obvious that Pipeman was never traced by the police. (Whether Pipeman was known to the IWEC is a whole another matter though.)

Won't be doing much Ripperology in the next couple days. Have just arrived in Berlin (after 3 months of working in the US), finished sorting through my post, and am BURRIED in bureaucracy on 4 different matters. Pertaining to some nice funding I'll be getting, but with still tons of details requiring to get untangled. Monday's gonna be a real nice day, lol.

Off to unpack my suitcase. I'm so done in from lack of sleep/extensive sitting on the planes, I'm walking with a limp, lol.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, when you said that one press release suggested that “the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement“, were you simply referring to the Star report implying that the police expressed doubts against Schwartz as a witness, or perhaps to another newspaper report?

Thats the only one I know of Maria..

The Star
LONDON. TUESDAY, 2 OCTOBER, 1888.

The threads that had been taken up on the possible chance of their leading to something tangible have been laid down again. It is but fair to say that the police have clutched eagerly at every straw that promised to help them out, but there is nothing left to work on. People have come forward by scores to furnish the description of a man they had seen with some woman near the scene, and not a great while before the commission of one or the other of

SUNDAY MORNING'S CRIMES,

but no two of the descriptions are alike, and none of the accompanying information has thus far been able to bear investigation. In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Just because this is the Star, I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in it. The Star have been known to exaggerate reports one day, only to deride the same report the next day.
I mention it because it exists and because we don't know otherwise, we can't ignore it.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

I know, but the “Lipski“ shout could have still gotten out inadvertedly at the inquest and such an incident would have been considered as “provocatory“ in Victorian Whitechapel – especially when associated with another slaying of an “unfortunate“. However, I completely agree with you that considering the “Lipski“ shout as the sole reason Schwartz did not appear at the inquest is not convincing.

Wickerman, when you said that one press release suggested that “the police at Leman St. had essentially lost interest in Schwartz's statement“, were you simply referring to the Star report implying that the police expressed doubts against Schwartz as a witness, or perhaps to another newspaper report?