P.C Smith and William West

[Canucco dei Mergi]

And Wess speaks first at the inquest....why? Why not Kelly? Why not PC Smith? Why not Diemshutz if he finds her? Why not Schwartz?

Wess spoke english very well.
He was much educated and, as some reporters put it when they interviewed him during the great sweating system strike, extremely clever.
He knew the topography of 40 Berner street and internal court very well.
He was there the night of the crime even if not really at the time of the murder.

For question of order and logic the inquest began by describing the place where the murder occurred.

For all the things I said here above he was the most qualified witness to start speaking before the coroner.

That Wess spoke first at the inquest is a normal thing and probably it was decided by the police with the assent of the Coroner (or the Coroner asked to the police to start sending someone who could definitely give a good description of the place). I do not think that smells at all.

For all the rest I agree with you.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Throat cut between 12:46 and 12:56...but Diemshutz arrives at 1...hmm...

That Diemshitz disturbed the murderer as he was nearing or entering the yard with the cart and interrupted him is and has always been just an hypothetical reconstruction of the events.

That the police advanced it on that same night and that there are still the greatest majority of 'Ripperologues' that support it shows AP Wolf could have been right when he stated in his book that no major advances have been made on the case for more than 100 years.

Clearly the hypothesys is not well supported by circumstances but it is essential for the paladins of the serial killer conception of the affair to explain why 'Jack' had to kill twice that night and why 'he' butchered only the second victim.

They prefer, in the wake of Abberline work of destruction, to lean on this totally unsupported reconstruction instead of building a scenario based on Schwarz direct sight of events.

The doubts casted by Schwarz testimony are the same that arise from Emma Smith's: it doesn't seem that the Whitechapel murders reflect the action of a serial killer but that they instead (as Philip Sugden in a shy but precise way underlines) point in the direction of a conspiracy.

God save us (and Scotland Yard) from that Omen.
Let us all say that Emma Smith is not pertinent to the case and that the testimony of Schwarz was sadly translated from yiddish in a wrong way.

May we bless Elizabeth Long (not the victim, the other one in the Chapman case) that saw one man with one woman.
Let us forget that her testimony is contradicted by two other witnesses (Richardson and Cadosch) and by the medical deductions, let us forget that she presented herself to the police two days after the murder and let us hope people stay naive for the next 200 years.

A serial killer has to have been there and we shall place it there whatever the cost.

Sir, Yes Sir.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Anyone standing in the passage, even at it's edge, would be invisible to him.

Totally unsupported and biased deduction (indeed not even a deduction - just air in a balloon).

We do not know if Goldstein saw something or if he didn't.

Since he was a member of the club and came up the street from Commercial Road we could suppose that his intention was to enter the club and that a last minute thought prevented him from doing so.

What could have been (if any) this last minute thought ? Dunno. But he could (could) have been prevented by seeing something in the alley.
Maybe (maybe) the already prostrated victim.

Let us not forget that Goldstein went to the police station only after Mrs Mortimer made her deposition to the police and after that deposition was made known in the newspapers and that he went to the police accompanied by William Wess.

He could have been a very shy guy, shy enough to get scared by seeing a body on the ground.

All this might be BS and Goldstein simply had no intention to enter the club, just passing by to go home.

But the quote here above is nothing less.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I think its possible that Goldstein saw "the whole thing", as we are quoted Schwartz's testimony was. Although a rather small player in the night, he is only seen glancing "up" towards the club while passing hurriedly, there are some issues that I am not satisfied are fully addressed.

Goldstein was a club member, and had in his Gladstone like bag, empty cigarette cartons. He shows up at around 12:55am, and as it so happens, some cottagers opposite the club wall were still awake at that time, and some were cigarette makers.

Is it possible that Goldstein was bringing the cartons to the cigarette makers in the yard, and saw something dangerous looking and just kept "Striding" on by?

As Tom Wescott has mentioned here, these were young men, hardly grey bearded socialists, Diemshutz was 30, Kozebrodski was 17, and Eagle was 27. Their club was known by police as an "anarchists" club, and in the spring of 1889, they attack policemen in Dutfields Yard with sticks and clubs. Most of the neighbours also mentioned the noise and milling about in the yard after Saturday night meetings past 1am....with "low" men present.

Yet this night, even after rain had subsided and it was clear that at least 28 men were on site, we are told, singing upstairs.......not one person is in the yard after Lave, then Eagle, pass through it around 12:40am.

No-one was smoking, no-one needed to use the yard privy, no-one needed some night air, no-one needed to stretch their legs, no-one needed to leave between 12:40am and 1am to go home to the wife, cottagers were awake but oblivious to the yards activities, no-one needed to leave and get ready to go to work....like a Butcher for example, who started their work in the wee hours.....and Israel Schwartz is walking up to the gates at approx 12:45 to check to see if his wife moved from their Berner St address to the new address........as if she would need 10 or 12 hours to move some suitcases and a chair, or something to that effect.

If.....Schwartz was leaving the club, and in the yard when a man accosts Liz near the wall by the gates, and hurries on out, maybe along with a Pipe smoking man also there, then his statement would be an accusatory one towards someone attending that meeting. That would have closed this club down.

So,....Wess interprets for Goldstein, maybe Schwartz, and the account is now taking place outside the gates, with a drunk man that cannot be connected to the club using his location alone, and the yard contained not one witness, because all remaining people were upstairs singing, or in their cottages with their drapes closed.

-Why didnt Liz pay for her bed before leaving? She had the money from cleaning that day.
-Why would she say she did not know when she might return, after she had already given some velvet to a lodger to hold for her, which would lead one to surmise she had plans at least for that night. Did she mean she might not return to sleep there again, or just that night?
-Why is she wearing an ankle length skirt and a flower on her breast to solicit.....and why would cashous be something she would use when dealing with street people that smell horrible likely.
-Why didnt Eagle and Lave see each other, when their statements have them both in the yard at 12:40am?
-Why did Eagle, who is self described as "squeamish" about blood, tumble "pell-mell" down the stairs to see the murdered woman discovered by Diemshutz.
-Why didnt Police use Schwartz's statement at the Inquest?
-Why do Eagle, Diemshutz and Kozebrodski run out yelling "another" woman has been murdered?
-Why is Liz Stride, if a Ripper victim, unmutilated post mortem?
-Is there anything with respect to the known evidence regarding her murder that precludes someone else with a knife killing her, other than Jack?

Cheers all.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Is it possible that Goldstein was bringing the cartons to the cigarette makers in the yard, and saw something dangerous looking and just kept "Striding" on by?

Interesting thought. Never came to my mind but very realistic.
I must concede that Goldstein only passing by 'his' club and not stopping might make one wonder...was at least the body already there ?

The problem is that the case can't be solved only by asking (even if the questions are appropriate), after asking one should have at least elements to base any answer on, and in the case of Goldstein, as far goes the little information we have there is not a lot we can answer.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hello all,



Yet this night, even after rain had subsided and it was clear that at least 28 men were on site, we are told, singing upstairs.......not one person is in the yard after Lave, then Eagle, pass through it around 12:40am.

No-one was smoking, no-one needed to use the yard privy, no-one needed some night air, no-one needed to stretch their legs, no-one needed to leave between 12:40am and 1am to go home to the wife, cottagers were awake but oblivious to the yards activities, no-one needed to leave and get ready to go to work....like a Butcher for example, who started their work in the wee hours.....
.

Sincerly, I do not see anything susicious here...but...hey...just an opinion.

That the awoken cottagers didn't hear anything aside from the singing means that there was no noise made in the yard or at least the noise was not loud enough to be heard by them.
But this is not suspicious per se.
It is one of the little mysteries that we should explain with the reconstruction of the crime (valid point for all the 4 first canonical murders).
That using the serial killer scenario, the total lack of noise/screams is difficult to support I essentially agree.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hello all,
If.....Schwartz was leaving the club, and in the yard when a man accosts Liz near the wall by the gates, and hurries on out, maybe along with a Pipe smoking man also there, then his statement would be an accusatory one towards someone attending that meeting. That would have closed this club down.

Schwarz was an orthodox. He could never have been a member of the club.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

-Why didnt Liz pay for her bed before leaving? She had the money from cleaning that day.
-Why would she say she did not know when she might return, after she had already given some velvet to a lodger to hold for her, which would lead one to surmise she had plans at least for that night. Did she mean she might not return to sleep there again, or just that night?
-Why is she wearing an ankle length skirt and a flower on her breast to solicit.....and why would cashous be something she would use when dealing with street people that smell horrible likely.
-Why didnt Eagle and Lave see each other, when their statements have them both in the yard at 12:40am?
-Why did Eagle, who is self described as "squeamish" about blood, tumble "pell-mell" down the stairs to see the murdered woman discovered by Diemshutz.
-Why didnt Police use Schwartz's statement at the Inquest?
-Why do Eagle, Diemshutz and Kozebrodski run out yelling "another" woman has been murdered?
-Why is Liz Stride, if a Ripper victim, unmutilated post mortem?
-Is there anything with respect to the known evidence regarding her murder that precludes someone else with a knife killing her, other than Jack?

1. Who knows ? So what ?
2. Maybe. Nice thought. So what ?

3. That she was soliciting that night is only another of those 'magic theory' advanced by the serial killer paladins. Nothing in it. Circumstances tend to show she was not at it.
But for the said paladins aknowledging she was not soliciting would mean cutting the grass under their own feet.
Some of them (the serial killer integrists) have chosen to go further: putting the woman Stride with the woman Smith: in the not-pertinence wastepaper basket.
It says a lot.

3bis. Cachous were found in her hand. Nobody can prove she was having them already while alive. The murderer(s) might be the one(s) who put them there.

4. Probably because they were off by some minutes in their testimony. I see nothing suspicious there.

5. But he didn't stay long anyway when he saw the body, going away from the yard looking for a PC. Again, nothing suspicious (IMO)

6. Interesting point. Likely because his testimony was considered of the utmost importance and they did want to keep it secret from the press as police do it often today. Just not to give out their clues to the miscreants.
Little problem: they seem to have kept it secret even to Dr Phillips (fear of leaks ?) who couldn't explain bluish marks on the victim chests other than by 'pushing pressure'.

7. It is my contention that you look too suspiciously to those guys of the club.

8. Not really a safe place to lose time at mutilating.

9. The answer deserves a chapter of a book.

[Chris]

Schwarz was an orthodox. He could never have been a member of the club.

Do we know that for sure?

[Sam Flynn]

Goldstein was a club member, and had in his Gladstone like bag, empty cigarette cartons. He shows up at around 12:55am, and as it so happens, some cottagers opposite the club wall were still awake at that time, and some were cigarette makers.

There were hundreds of cigarette- and cigar-makers in that part of the world, Mike - it was a very popular "work-from-home" option at that time, as was making the boxes to hold them. I don't think we can read too much into the Leon Goldstein story on that score.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Do we know that for sure?

You mean if we know for sure that the guy seemingly dressed 'in the theatrical line' who Abberlines define as having strong jewish features and who leaves his wife alone not to get mixed up with the moving the day of the Shabbat while getting out of the way because the day of the Shabbat you can't even hint at working is an orthodox ?

No, I guess from those elements we can't know for sure.

But there are others to be looked for.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Canucco dei Mergi,

You have a mordant eye, and a wit to match.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

You mean if we know for sure that the guy seemingly dressed 'in the theatrical line' who Abberlines define as having strong jewish features and who leaves his wife alone not to get mixed up with the moving the day of the Shabbat while getting out of the way because the day of the Shabbat you can't even hint at working is an orthodox ?

Well, Schwartz's "strong Jewish appearance" would certainly be an indication that he was Jewish, but I don't think anyone has ever doubted that. And I'm not convinced a "theatrical" appearance would be an infallible indication that a Jew was orthodox, either.

But that's an interesting interpretation of the Star's statement "It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane".

If I understand correctly, the theory would be that Schwartz's wife had arranged to move lodgings on the Sabbath, when such a move would be strictly forbidden to orthodox Jews, and that he wished to dissociate himself from the proceeding, and therefore went out and left her to it.

That could certainly explain an otherwise puzzling feature of the Star's account. Though I suppose the Sabbath-day move could alternatively be considered evidence against the family's orthodoxy - or at least against Mrs S's.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

That could certainly explain an otherwise puzzling feature of the Star's account. Though I suppose the Sabbath-day move could alternatively be considered evidence against the family's orthodoxy - or at least against Mrs S's.

Opening a locked door is always a hard thing to do unless you got the key.
'Puzzling' many times is just an underestimation of the level of misunderstanding.

Are they offered to choose, a jewish orthodox family would certainly avoid moving on the day of Shabbat.
What the sense of doing it that day if...you can't ?

But they can't choose the moment the last day of the month fall.

As for renting flats at the time, contracts would have been very similar to the nowadays ones.
Rent are paid from the first to the last of the days, not beyond.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hi Canucco dei Mergi,

You have a mordant eye, and a wit to match.