Louis Diemschutz

[Limehouse]

Perhaps I could add something that might help in this debate. Immigrants may well themselves have spelt their names differently from time to time and from document to document. As an example, my mother's family on her father's side were called De Ritter. However, they variously referred to themselves as DeRitter, D'Ritter, De Ruyter, De Ridder and good old plain Ritter. We know they probably arrived in London during the 1750s and there is strong evidence to suggest they were Dutch (thus De Ruyter and De Ridder) but the De Ritter spelling is found in Holland, France and Germany so the true origins of the family are obscure. This story might explain why the spellings vary.

[Dan Norder]

In this case I myself verified, found an earlier position of my own was in error, and notified y'all. Why you believe that my doing so should single me out for special scepticism defeats me - I'd have thought that such an action demonstrated the reverse - but you're welcome to think so.

Mainly because you uncovered evidence that your earlier linguistic argument was nonsense and still insisted that a proven incorrect argument was better than arguments that were proven correct just because you vindictively refuse to accept that people other than you were right.

[c.d.]

Mainly because you uncovered evidence that your earlier linguistic argument was nonsense and still insisted that a proven incorrect argument was better than arguments that were proven correct just because you vindictively refuse to accept that people other than you were right.

Ego Alert!...Ego Alert!...Ego Alert!

Jeez Louise. Are you guys still at this? This horse has died and gone to meet its maker some time ago. Give it a rest, will ya.

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

"cos if it goes on much longer either Sam or Dan will be needing to get certified-never mind verified!

[Dan Norder]

c.d,

With all due respect, you're insulting the wrong person. It's not being egotistical to point out that someone else made an error and is too egotistical to admit it. Sam seems to work under the assumption that the only way anything can be proven correct or incorrect is if he does so, and apparently even proving himself to have been wrong on the same topic doesn't wake him up to the fact that the people who studied the actual documentary evidence and came to the conclusion he know sheepishly admits is right are more reliable than someone cooking up some wild theory that wouldn't have any bearing on the answer anyway.

I would hope that if some clueless person showed up to try to argue that a prostitute named Mary Kelly wasn't really a victim of the Ripper because it was just Catherine Eddowes using a different name and everyone else was too stupid to realize it was the same victim that you wouldn't call someone an egomaniac for pointing out that that person was dead wrong. If that person then showed up later to say, oh, well turns out that Mary Kelly was a different person because the one was Mary Jane and the other Mary Ann but everyone else was still an idiot for not taking him seriously, then that person ought to be able to have explained to him why he's still wrong without someone in the peanut gallery pissing and moaning about it like it's some sort of imposition to have the posts around.

If you aren't interested, don't read it. And if you (or Natalie for that matter) don't want to see anyone arguing about whether something is wrong or right, then you are on the wrong message board... hell, and Jack the Ripper is the wrong field of interest for you in general.

[Sam Flynn]

Mainly because you uncovered evidence that your earlier linguistic argument was nonsense

I discovered that the name, which I've found to be predominantly Russian, was entered - in non-Cyrillic script - onto the Yad Vashem website, where it was variously transliterated as Dymschitz, Dim$chitz or Dim$hitz. Take your pick from which one of those you consider "definitive", and then tell me that my arguing that the name in its Germanic form of "Diemschütz" (or its variants) was "nonsense". It wasn't. I was incorrect to insist on it - as I discover and notify you some months later - but not because my argument was nonsensical.

just because you vindictively refuse to accept that people other than you were right.

I acknowledged the exact opposite a few pages back, which makes your argument somewhat nonsensical on this occasion.

I'm not in the least bit vindictive, by the way. I wish I were, sometimes, but it's just not in my makeup.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
my basic rule is that if you realise someone is being vindictive then you are being vindictive yourself.
When you have worked that out, sing me a song and I'll believe you are Welsh.

[perrymason]

For myself, I do not give a Schitz whether he's a Schutz, Schotz, or Schultz, but the incident in question is as Natalie suggested earlier, and Mr D and young Master K attacked Police with clubs, along with many other club members. Regardless of how it started, which was supposedly a blow to Mrs D by a Policeman, it demonstrates that the International Club and its members were capable of and willing to, assault Police.

Now that the club potential for violence and their dislike of Police is recorded...(not in any small way due to Bloody Sunday Ill bet),...look at the testimony and reports from Strides murder.....Eagle terrified of blood, but he's tumbling down the stairs pell-mell to see the dead woman, Mr D heading in to see if his wife is ok, one report says he wasn't sure the dead woman wasn't her at this time, even after lighting a match to see who or what was there. Running for help yelling "another" murder has been committed, not a woman was found dead.....

Can we be assured in any way.. that any or all of their statements were recitations of truthful data, as they understood it....or did they play with details to avoid club scrutiny as the possible source of the murderer? Were these people likely of a mindset to assist local Police ?

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Can we be assured in any way.. that any or all of their statements were recitations of truthful data, as they understood it....or did they play with details to avoid club scrutiny as the possible source of the murderer?

The theory that (several) members of the IWEC conspired to create a smokescreen on the night of Stride's murder has little to do with Diemschutz as an individual or what scrapes he got into to 7 months after Stride's death. Discussion of such matters ought to hang off another thread - and a slender one at that

[Natalie Severn]

For myself, I do not give a Schitz whether he's a Schutz, Schotz, or Schultz, but the incident in question is as Natalie suggested earlier, and Mr D and young Master K attacked Police with clubs, along with many other club members. Regardless of how it started, which was supposedly a blow to Mrs D by a Policeman, it demonstrates that the International Club and its members were capable of and willing to, assault Police.

Now that the club potential for violence and their dislike of Police is recorded...(not in any small way due to Bloody Sunday Ill bet),...look at the testimony and reports from Strides murder.....Eagle terrified of blood, but he's tumbling down the stairs pell-mell to see the dead woman, Mr D heading in to see if his wife is ok, one report says he wasn't sure the dead woman wasn't her at this time, even after lighting a match to see who or what was there. Running for help yelling "another" murder has been committed, not a woman was found dead.....

Can we be assured in any way.. that any or all of their statements were recitations of truthful data, as they understood it....or did they play with details to avoid club scrutiny as the possible source of the murderer? Were these people likely of a mindset to assist local Police ?

Best regards.

Dear Mike,
I think you have very much got the wrong end of the stick here.The words I quoted were taken from the latest book by Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow entitled," JtR Scotland Yard Investigates" .They can be found on page 290 under item 4.
Anyway I will report exactly what they write:

from page 101-
Twenty eight members of the International Working Men"s Educational Club were searched, their clothes examined and statements taken.Some may not have spoken English or spoke it very badly and there were suggestions of rough handling by the police.[4]

Note [4] page 290This would not be surprising because mant marches and demonstrations started from the club.............................................. ....................according to one report the police forced their way into the club,"broke windows and tore down pictures and fell with their fists and their batons upon a few of the comrades who happened to be there.Diemshutz"s wife was thrown down and kicked ------etc etc and then they were taken to the policec station with blood streaming from their faces, beaten again and then they were charged with assaulting the police."
So get your canonicals round that Mike

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Gotcha Sam....

Nats, if I am understanding your correcting me.. is it based on the premise that it was the police that were the guilty parties in that affair?

Im not playing down Mrs D injuries, but Nats....the story has them attacking the police with clubs in the yard in reprisal...regardless of the inspiration, that is complete disrespect and lacking fear of the law and reveals a nasty underbelly to the International Club....a Socialist flashpoint for speeches of rebellion and reform, made by Immigrants to the country. The police were responsible for the ill feelings from Bloody Sunday locally with these people, but many were not innocent of crimes.

If the Police were predisposed to roughing them up at any time, they had a damn good excuse to when a dead women is found on their property....but they didnt. The club and cottages occupants were detained, searched, and released.

If I misread you....never mind.

Thread wise, I believe that Diemshutz... or any variation thereof, is more likely an accomplice by misrepresenting what actually occurred, and the worst part is that he is a pivotal man in Liz's Canonical appointment...he is "The Interruption".....well, maybe 4 to 14 minutes after she's cut, but whats a few minutes between friends?

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

Dear Mike,
I respectfully disagree that the young Jewish men who belonged to the club were guilty of roughing up the police.They were not.
There was a political decision made and "the police felt bound in the interests of public peace to make some arrests"[for that translate "the government decided that in order to prevent another demonstration like Bloody Sunday ,-the police need to be prompted to rough up the club members-etc]
If you dont see that Mike----I cant help you .......read "East End Jewish Radicals"1875-1914 by William Fishman.
Best
Nats

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Thread wise, I believe that Diemshutz... or any variation thereof, is more likely an accomplice by misrepresenting what actually occurred

But this thread relates to Diemschutz (the witness) alone - not his complicitousness or otherwise in the Stride murder. It's more of a "biographical" thread, if you like - kind of "What Louis did next" - rather than one connected to the Stride murder per se. By all means bring that idea up under "Victims/Stride", rather than a "Witness/Diemschutz" banner, but here it's out of place.

but whats a few minutes between friends?

Um... the difference between agony and ecstasy? (My tribute to Chuck.)

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Im sure there is literature that paints the altercation in that hue Nats, just that I dont buy these men were "victims".

Sam, I did notice the trend early in the thread, hence my opening, however my point after addressing Nats relates to his status as a witness, which I thought was being covered under Witnesses-Diemshutz thread.

My mistake. Ill bow out as Im not really interested in his name spelling, sorry.

Cheers.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mike,
Quite right-history depends on who scribes it.Just so long as we all remember that there are usually at least several other versions of the same event to be had from different sources!--------but I am fine with that Mike,even if people often decide ,well in advance of the facts of a case, "whose side they are on".
In this case you appear to be on the side of the "Bryant and May" type factory owners who,in 1888, chose to pay no attention to the conditions that were causing women workers to develop the lethal "phossy jaw" or to the appalling wages and other conditions the women worked under.OK ,fine. But actually Mike,it was the factory owners and the sweat shop owners who,capitalising on the governments fear of a repeat of Bloody Sunday from Berner street demonstrators,conspired with the government to target the Berner Street Club by having a few police raids.Thats what was behind that particular raid.
Cheers
Natalie