For what reason do we include Stride?

[Losmandris]

A question on times? How accurate do you think the witnesses were in giving times for the events they observed? I am presuming they did not all have time pieces, so were in general 'guesstimating'. I ask as, certainly in Stride's case minutes, even seconds are vital in terms of putting everything into some kind of logical order.

[Harry D]

And demonstrating that they were doing everything they could to help the police and not hinder the investigation doesn't do that how exactly?

- Jeff

At the same time, constructing a false witness to mislead the investigation.

According to Schwartz, Liz was manhandled and thrown to the ground by some thug. Minutes later she's dead in the yard. There was no sign of a struggle, the cachous were still in her hand, no one else heard or saw anything to corroborate Schwarz's story. Everything points to Liz being killed suddenly, without warning. Hard to believe that Liz would enter in the blackness of the yard with her guard down with the same man who moments earlier roughed her up. People will proffer theories in order to reconcile the two but imo none of them wash. Funny how people have no problem handwaving that issue, but to suppose that an immigrant jew would bend the truth to protect his own kin? Preposterous!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Michael W Richards,

If there was a Pipeman, ...

I can't provide the link, sorry, but there are some posts here on Casebook where people suggest that Pipeman may have been located, talked to, and cleared, by the police.

... and Israel believed the call to be directed at him, it still could be interpreted as a call to notify a co-conspirator about Schwartz. The term was derogatory, that's clear, and the heightened sensitivity to anti Semitism led to the destruction of perhaps vital evidence in the case of the grafitto. That's precisely why I suggest that a dead woman presented the club with some potentially devastating problems.

There's no question the club would be aware of the implications. The issue is whether or not they created an elaborate cover up on par with Moriarty in it's subtleties. I rather suspect, without the benefit of time to write, revise, and re-write, they didn't first think of having their main story man include reference to a Jewish name as a good way of deflecting attention from themselves since they themselves were Jews. It just begs attention. The rest, as things fell out, is not something one would predict before hand, but easy to work in only through the glories of hindsight.

The reference to Israels statement "at the Inquest" is obviously erroneous based on all the evidence that is known to this date, so, not to spend to much time following that kind of supposition would be a good idea.

Oh, I don't put much into it. I just thought it interesting to note. I'm sure it was just a mistake during the letter writing. There's nothing anywhere to even try and build a "he gave his evidence under orders of suppression from publication". Again, I just found that worthy of noting, but I think it is more worth noting in terms of why we need to be cautious about any and everything, and not get too focused in on one or two bits of written accounts that seem odd. People make mistakes. I know, I make them all the time. I'm people.

His remarks.. as likely translated by Wess, (Wess does translate for Goldstein Tuesday night, its probable he did so for Schwartz as well), suggest an encounter that has anti Semitic overtones. Which is a flag here, the translator has all the power. The story is his to relate as given or as he wishes.

Unless we have other evidence to suggest that Wess was an unreliable translator, then I think this is just listing possibilities rather than plausibility, and I don't mean that as an insult or jibe (I hope it doesn't come across that way, I'm just stating my view, yours is free to differ after all).

I recall seeing a Roadshow piece recently where a letter from Morris to William Wess was discovered, and it contains reference to the differences between Anarchists and Socialists and Communists by Morris, and that he saw himself in the latter group. The nihilist quality of anarchistic activities, perhaps also the violence rained on the innocents, was not what he was about at all. Which brings us to the environment where Wess worked. The Mens Club on Berner. Is Arbeter Fraint and the Mens Club something that even some local Socialist/Communist Jews wouldn't want to be associated with, because of its message and methods at times?

You have to wonder whether some of the far right activists factions from groups like that and perhaps likeminded revolutionary types from Ireland, people who wanted the place where they now lived, or their country of origin, to be run by their own pollical order and were ok with using terrorist type tactics to destabilize the area, might band together on some activities. That yard might have perfect for storage of volatile substances. Just a sidebar.

We're getting quite far from the case and evidence now. The further we go, the more room for going anywhere. I'm not really sure what to do with the above bit actually. Sorry.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

If there was a Pipeman, and Israel believed the call to be directed at him, it still could be interpreted as a call to notify a co-conspirator about Schwartz. The term was derogatory, that's clear, and the heightened sensitivity to anti Semitism led to the destruction of perhaps vital evidence in the case of the grafitto. That's precisely why I suggest that a dead woman presented the club with some potentially devastating problems.

The reference to Israels statement "at the Inquest" is obviously erroneous based on all the evidence that is known to this date, so, not to spend to much time following that kind of supposition would be a good idea. His remarks.. as likely translated by Wess, (Wess does translate for Goldstein Tuesday night, its probable he did so for Schwartz as well), suggest an encounter that has anti Semitic overtones. Which is a flag here, the translator has all the power. The story is his to relate as given or as he wishes.

I recall seeing a Roadshow piece recently where a letter from Morris to William Wess was discovered, and it contains reference to the differences between Anarchists and Socialists and Communists by Morris, and that he saw himself in the latter group. The nihilist quality of anarchistic activities, perhaps also the violence rained on the innocents, was not what he was about at all. Which brings us to the environment where Wess worked. The Mens Club on Berner. Is Arbeter Fraint and the Mens Club something that even some local Socialist/Communist Jews wouldn't want to be associated with, because of its message and methods at times?

You have to wonder whether some of the far right activists factions from groups like that and perhaps likeminded revolutionary types from Ireland, people who wanted the place where they now lived, or their country of origin, to be run by their own pollical order and were ok with using terrorist type tactics to destabilize the area, might band together on some activities. That yard might have perfect for storage of volatile substances. Just a sidebar.

[JeffHamm]

....

We have a club for jewish socialists (anarchists), antisemitism is rife, one jew was almost lynched for the murders. A potential ripper victim is discovered on their doorstep.

You don't think the club would conspire to protect themselves out of fear of recriminations? Seriously?

And demonstrating that they were doing everything they could to help the police and not hinder the investigation doesn't do that how exactly?

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Wash the blood up.
keep a look out first and or use the cart before dumping-Mere seconds and little chance of being seen.
remember, they are not pressed for time if its a conspiracy and have all hands on deck to help.

If it's that simple, why didn't they do that?

Guilty or no, why wouldn't they do that just to be on the safe side?

but of course its rubbish, like the royal conspiracy and police conspiracy nonsense.

i guess any mystery will produce the crackpot conspiracy theories though.

Trying to conflate this with the royal conspiracy is nonsense.

We have a club for jewish socialists (anarchists), antisemitism is rife, one jew was almost lynched for the murders. A potential ripper victim is discovered on their doorstep.

You don't think the club would conspire to protect themselves out of fear of recriminations? Seriously?

[Abby Normal]

Except for, you know, the blood.

And imagine if some random passer-by got around the corner to see a bunch of Jews rolling a corpse onto the street.

Wash the blood up.
keep a look out first and or use the cart before dumping-Mere seconds and little chance of being seen.
remember, they are not pressed for time if its a conspiracy and have all hands on deck to help.
but of course its rubbish, like the royal conspiracy and police conspiracy nonsense.

i guess any mystery will produce the crackpot conspiracy theories though.

[JeffHamm]

It could be that the added ambiguity over whether "Lipski" was directed at Pipeman or Schwartz actually lent the story an air of credibility. Better to obfuscate the truth of what happened than try to play it too on the nose.

It's over 130 years after the fact and people are still believing Schwartz's version of events, so it obviously got the job done.

Schwartz's original story wasn't ambiguous though. His report was that "Lipski" was shouted to pipeman. The ambiguity, if you will, arose from police work - they determined that his interpretation was probably wrong.

That's way too complex for a conspiracy theory. Look, I'm not saying Schwartz's statement must be viewed without caution, or anything like that (in fact, the conspiracy theory says we should view it as fabrication; the police at the time say we should view some of it as misinterpreted; and eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate; etc). What I'm saying, though, is that when viewed as part of a conspiracy to deflect attention from Jews, his story, as told, is shockingly bad - in fact it is unable to do anything but attract attention the very group that is supposed to be trying to divert attention away from. The conspiracy theory skewers itself on the very evidence it puts forth. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is flawed. But showing the conspiracy theory as flawed does not automatically mean Schwartz is gospel either, we can still question the validity of his testimony, but what he said refutes him being set up by the club to deflect attention away from the Jewish population - because what he said can only do the opposite. To suggest that a conspiracy, put together in a few minutes after a body was found, would include so subtle a detail as "but the cops will work out that Lipski was directed as Schwartz and not as he initially claims, at an accomplice" is getting into chem trails, and Area 51 level of silliness. Schwartz's statement refutes such a conspiracy, but that doesn't mean his statement isn't to be questioned in other contexts.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

all they had to do was move her body a few feet out of the yard-they even had a diemshitz cart right there. and the thought that they came up with this convoluted conspiracy on the spur of the moment and everyone agreed is ridiculous.

Except for, you know, the blood.

And imagine if some random passer-by got around the corner to see a bunch of Jews rolling a corpse onto the street.

[Harry D]

Except Schwartz's original story was that "Lipski" was shouted to Pipeman not at him. Through questioning by the police he admitted that he couldn't be sure. If the club members are quickly putting together a conspiracy to deflect suspicion from a Jewish club and/or the Jewish population in general, you don't include a Jewish named member of the murder team in your cover story. And this part of Schwartz's statement did direct suspicions towards the Jewish population. For example, in Evans & Skinner, page 131 there's the following from The Home Office records

It could be that the added ambiguity over whether "Lipski" was directed at Pipeman or Schwartz actually lent the story an air of credibility. Better to obfuscate the truth of what happened than try to play it too on the nose.

It's over 130 years after the fact and people are still believing Schwartz's version of events, so it obviously got the job done.

[JeffHamm]

Exactly. The usage of "Lipski" from the attacker alone was meant to incriminate a gentile. I expect that Schwartz may have received this epithet first-hand and called on it when inventing this little incident.
...

Except Schwartz's original story was that "Lipski" was shouted to Pipeman not at him. Through questioning by the police he admitted that he couldn't be sure. If the club members are quickly putting together a conspiracy to deflect suspicion from a Jewish club and/or the Jewish population in general, you don't include a Jewish named member of the murder team in your cover story. And this part of Schwartz's statement did direct suspicions towards the Jewish population. For example, in Evans & Skinner, page 131 there's the following from The Home Office records:

The statement of Schwartz that a man who was in the company of Eliz. Stride 15 m. before she was found dead, & who threw her down, addressed a companion (?) as "Lipski" seems to furnish a clue and ought to be followed up. The number of "Lipskis" in Whitechapel must be limited. If one of them were identified by Schwarz [sic] it might lead to something of importance.
17 Oct./88.

and on page 132, we have the following letter, dated 29 Oct, 1888 that was sent to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from the Home Office, and marked "confidential"

Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 24th Inst. enclosing a report as to the steps taken to detect the perpetrator of the recent murders in Whitechapel, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that he observes that a statement has been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was ["in the company of" - deleted] pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place ["speaking" - deletd] call out "Lipski" to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road ["by the name of 'Lipski'" - deleted]
["Mr. Matthews presumes that this" - deleted]
It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" ["was used" - deleted] as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.
...
"

As we can see, Schwartz's statement did exactly the oppoiste, it pointed towards the Jewish population, and given his statement, could do nothing but that.

Sir Charles Warren later informs HO and the SofS how it has been determined that "Lipski" is used as a derogatory term towards Jews, and that it was probably directed at Schwartz, not pipeman in his letter of Nov 6th, 1888 (page 135).

Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

...

It was only because the police worked out that Schwartz's original statement was unlikely to be correct, that Schwartz was mistaken in whom "Lipski" was directed to, that it becomes suggestive of a Gentile murderer. But that doesn't change the fact that the original story Schwartz told implicated a Jew as a potential accomplice, which is exactly what the conspiracy theory is supposed to be trying to prevent.

What I do find interesting, though, is that in that last letter, the following bit "...the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case..." sounds like Schwartz gave evidence at the inquest, but there's nothing by him in any of the reports I've seen, and the summing up by the Coroner has no indication of Schwartz's testimony. It might make sense if some comma's are missing, but then we have an extra "at", something like this "...the opinion arrived at, upon the evidence given by Schwartz, at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case...", meaning the opinion about Schwartz's police statement was arrived at based upon the inquest testimony, but I feel like I'm torturing the language to get it to say that.

I think this must just be a mistaken detail by Warren, in that the evidence wasn't given at the inquest but during an interview with Schwartz.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I agree, but with that understood, IMHO we need to recognize that everything a club member may have offered was going to be guided by the 'Jewish concerns' MR's conspiracy theory suggests. I personally doubt they planned anything and likely reacted in the manner we would expect from anyone when a murder occurs outside your door, but once they started talking there may very well have been an unwitting conspiracy (sorry for the oxymoron) to watch what was said, even to the point of lying at any particular moment if the individual thought it the best course. I think we have to believe that the Jewish situation guided their cooperation.

An earlier post suggested that Wess served as a translator for Schwartz; I was unaware of this, but it does open the door for all kinds of mischievous behavior in the translation and Wess was a serious activist.

Does anyone know the details regarding Wess and Louis and how much impact their involvement affected Schwartz's testimony? I didn't really understand what the post was suggesting.

Regarding Wess and Louis, both had jobs that were at that location, and we know courtesy of Debra here at Casebook that a connection between Wess and Schwartz exists from Paris a few years earlier, so to wonder whether Schwartz's statement was tailored to not hurt Louis or Wess or the club is fair speculation. Besides, I suspect the reason he was there at that time was because he attended the meeting and was at the club, not coming back from the market he left to go to at noon, and leaving his wife not only to move all they owned by herself but to settle in also. We don't know where Israel lived that morning, might it have been a cottage in the passageway? Might he have owed a debt to the club for that?

As far as a broad conspiracy goes, its clear it was limited to only a few witnesses, because 3 people, (2 club members) dispute the time the body was found...as per Louis's account only, 1 disputes the time Louis arrived..as per Louis's account only, and 1 club member says he was sent out alone to seek help by Louis...which disputes Louis account and adds a third undocumented party sent out for help.

[APerno]

exactly HS
Its nonsense. all they had to do was move her body a few feet out of the yard-they even had a diemshitz cart right there. and the thought that they came up with this convoluted conspiracy on the spur of the moment and everyone agreed is ridiculous.

I agree, but with that understood, IMHO we need to recognize that everything a club member may have offered was going to be guided by the 'Jewish concerns' MR's conspiracy theory suggests. I personally doubt they planned anything and likely reacted in the manner we would expect from anyone when a murder occurs outside your door, but once they started talking there may very well have been an unwitting conspiracy (sorry for the oxymoron) to watch what was said, even to the point of lying at any particular moment if the individual thought it the best course. I think we have to believe that the Jewish situation guided their cooperation.

An earlier post suggested that Wess served as a translator for Schwartz; I was unaware of this, but it does open the door for all kinds of mischievous behavior in the translation and Wess was a serious activist.

Does anyone know the details regarding Wess and Louis and how much impact their involvement affected Schwartz's testimony? I didn't really understand what the post was suggesting.

[Michael W Richards]

This can certainly be true Harry but can we say that this with total confidence? What I mean is that, on finding a body outside the club (a murdered woman that could very well have been a club members wife/girlfriend/sister/mother) they would have lied about the circumstances. Wouldn’t it have been possible that a few consciences might have spoken out?

Another point that I’d like to make is this: (and I haven’t read all of the thread so I don’t know Michael’s reasoning on this) how confident would the members have been that their efforts weren’t just a waste of time? This whole plan would have been created in such a short space of time, why would this prove to the police (or lead the members to believe) that Diemschutz didn’t just disturb a club member just after he’d cut Stride’s throat?

It would seem quite a few people saw the woman lying there before the police arrived and apparently no-one recognized her for one, and the people who created the notion were employed by the club, and therefore the only ones who would have lost income if it closed. Not everyone did align with those 2 men, as Ive said until my fingers bleed, 3 people said they were by Louis and the dying woman at around 12:45.

I would think Israel Schwartz tried to tie up some loose ends Sunday night, being a friend of Wess's, and translated by Wess, since he was unable to speak English. Since there is absolutely no evidence any interruption occurred, and physical evidence that says she was cut perhaps 5 minutes before Louis says he arrived or longer and was still untouched after she was dropped there, (like the same length of time Kates killer took to do all that cutting, IF Lawende did see Kate), there is no physical evidence that happened either.

The club was thought by police to harbor Anarchists, not just Socialists, and these members attack police with clubs less than 6 months later on that same property, why you and so many others wish to see these as men of "conscience" rather than the fringe criminal element they were is beyond me personally, but surely anyone can see that Jewish Immigrants were despised in much of the East End at that time, likely due to the extraordinary numbers of them that had recently immigrated. Thats why they gathered in the same areas and houses, for safety and the comfort of their own. Anderson suggests one Jewish witness refused to identify a suspect in the crimes because he was also Jewish. So, Where would he get an idea like that, huh?

The Club members knew the hostility in the area towards them, they knew their less than ideal reputation with the police and neighbors, and in just a few hours graffiti is erased because it seemed to represent anti Jew sentiment to the highest officials, and that it was thought to have been a boiling kettle issue.

How this find was perceived was vital to their survival.

[Abby Normal]

This can certainly be true Harry but can we say that this with total confidence? What I mean is that, on finding a body outside the club (a murdered woman that could very well have been a club members wife/girlfriend/sister/mother) they would have lied about the circumstances. Wouldn’t it have been possible that a few consciences might have spoken out?

Another point that I’d like to make is this: (and I haven’t read all of the thread so I don’t know Michael’s reasoning on this) how confident would the members have been that their efforts weren’t just a waste of time? This whole plan would have been created in such a short space of time, why would this prove to the police (or lead the members to believe) that Diemschutz didn’t just disturb a club member just after he’d cut Stride’s throat?

exactly HS
Its nonsense. all they had to do was move her body a few feet out of the yard-they even had a diemshitz cart right there. and the thought that they came up with this convoluted conspiracy on the spur of the moment and everyone agreed is ridiculous.