Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel Schwartz,

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Two minds but with a single thought.

    Evening News, 1st October 1888—

    “Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, (so says Dr. Gordon [Brown], who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) gives it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority.”
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      If Elizabeth Stride was a “Jack the Ripper” victim, why in his summing-up did Wynne Baxter conclude—[and by 23rd October he had enjoyed the luxury of a three week adjournment in which to consider the matter]—that Catherine Eddowes’ murder was “possibly the work of an imitator.”
      Hello Simon,

      Well I guess the obvious answer would be that he was not certain one way or another. And why would he be? So he simply hedged his bet and used the word "possibly."

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #48
        Still looking for BS & P.

        ELA, Oct 6. The first suspect looks promising:

        A man was brought to the Leman-street station on Sunday night, under circumstances which gave the police hopes at first that they had made an important capture. He was arrested, it seems, near Mitre-court, and could give no satisfactory account of himself. His appearance was anything but prepossessing. He was a short, thickset man of about 30, close shaven. Upon him was found 1s. 4d. in money and a razor, and round his throat was a woollen scarf of a violet colour, upon which were several long hairs, evidently those of a woman. In reply to the inspector, he said that he had walked from Southampton, and belonged to the Royal Sussex Regiment (the very regiment, it will be remembered, whose cognisances was on the envelope found in the pocket of the Buck's-row victim). An examination of his boots, however, was not at all confirmatory of this statement, and he was taken to the cells for inquiries to be made about him. The man was ultimately released.
        There was another arrest made during the night, the prisoner being taken to Commercial-road police-station. The prisoner, however, readily furnished his name and address and apparently had no knowledge of the details of the murders. He was discharged upon his statement being verified.
        The man when taken into custody was in a very excited condition. At 3:15 on Monday morning a third man was arrested and likewise taken to Leman-street police station. He was also released in the course of the day. A description was circulated of a man who is stated to have accosted an "unfortunate" in the vicinity of Commercial-road on Saturday night, and to have threatened to cut her throat if she did not give him money. The woman gave him a shilling, and he then went away.
        During Tuesday four persons were arrested on the chance that they might have had something to do with the Berner-street murder, but the only items against them were their own bravado or their suspicious looks. It has become customary for shabbily dressed men who frequent public-houses in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel to proclaim in their cups that they know a great deal about the murders, and as some one in the place generally informs the police, a constable, for form's sake, is obliged to take the braggart to the police-station, where it is, without exception, found that the boasts are utterly untrue. The men taken to the station were in every case discharged. One arrest was effected as far away as Hampton Wick. An individual, apparently a gentleman in reduced circumstances, called on Monday night at an inn, and asked for a lodging. He was admitted, but not long after a remark was made by one who saw him that he was somewhat of the description circulated of the Whitechapel murderer. Mr. Honeycomb, the landlord, also thought he saw a slight resemblance, and a constable was called in, but nothing further was done in the matter, as the man's account of himself was considered satisfactory. On Tuesday morning, however, the visitor's appearance seemed changed to the landlord, and the conclusion come to was that he had shaved his whiskers off during the night. The police were again sent for, and another constable took charge of the man. He was brought across the Thames to Kingston police-station, and there stated that he obtained from the British Consul a free passage from Brussels to London, where he landed on Saturday and stayed during the night. Sunday night he spent at the Sun Hotel, Market-place, Kingston, and on Monday night he went to the King's Head, Hampton Wick, where the unfounded suspicions were aroused. He gave a full account of all his movements since his arrival, and said he had friends at New Malden who would corroborate his statement. These people were visited by the constable, and the statement made by the suspect being found to be pretty correct, he was accordingly released.
        So by the Wednesday, still no sign of either man.
        I reckon at this point, the police should pay Israel Schwartz a visit....just head on down to 22 Ellen street....or is it Backchurch Lane....or...?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by c.d. View Post

          Hello Simon,

          Well I guess the obvious answer would be that he was not certain one way or another. And why would he be? So he simply hedged his bet and used the word "possibly."

          c.d.
          That's Wynne talking cd, not Phillips. Who saw 4 of the Five victims up close. No other physician saw more alleged Ripper victims, therefore no other physician is equally qualified to make a determination whether the wounds or the weapon used reminded him of something he had seen before in this "series".

          I had a thought while reading your last post NotBlamed, I wonder whether the killer or killers of these women was under arrest at some point during these investigations. In the initial stages the investigation would follow a most logical route, based on what was found and known, and some men arrested in connection with an earlier murder might have been targeted based on what they knew, and found. Men who fit the facts. Its refreshing to imagine a time, however brief, in the history of these investigations when the facts weren't shaped to fit the suspect. Or theory.

          Despite all the protestations that Im sure are out there its clear at least to me that Israel Schwartz is a red herring. What he describes happens at a time when 4 witness statements have a number of men already gathered around a dying woman in the passageway. One of them is Louis Diemshitz. Being mentioned later that month in the Gazette isn't validation for Israel, its just recognition of him. Its a statement that was made. One that was determined, after attempts to authenticate the story, to be of no use in the investigation of how Liz Stride dies. But nonetheless a part of the records.

          The bizarre centre staging of Mary Malcolm in this event is to me something quite suggestive of manipulation on the part of the investigators, they knew who Liz Stride was before Mary took the stand. Read the transcripts....she dominates them. The time they give her is extraordinary considering what they already knew. So, why did they allow that to happen? Why were some important witnesses not there...Fanny, Israel...? Was this Inquest presented based on facts or just what the police wanted to release?

          Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti?
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-18-2020, 09:42 AM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #50
            Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti?

            Good Lord! Is there anybody who was not involved in this conspiracy?

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti?

              Good Lord! Is there anybody who was not involved in this conspiracy?

              c.d.
              I wasnt!!!
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                I wasnt!!!
                So you say.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti?

                  Good Lord! Is there anybody who was not involved in this conspiracy?

                  c.d.
                  Don't know cd...and neither do you or anyone else until at least one of these murders gets solved. But for future sake a cover-up between 2 or more people requires conspiracy, so, because the word Conspiracy alone suggests something more widespread, perhaps we can refrain from suggesting "Armegeddon" when a "Battle" is a more appropriate. Or as in this case, a cover-up.... when a broad conspiracy between many parties at this stage isn't insinuated, suggested or warranted.

                  And a "coverup" when speaking of the Berner Street murder, based on elements I pointed outwith witness accounts and with the intentional and unneeded appearance at the Inquest of a witness making a statement that everyone knew was wrong before she made it, may not be as far fetched as you make it out to be.
                  Last edited by Michael W Richards; 03-18-2020, 05:12 PM.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Hi Michael,

                    Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

                    The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

                    Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Michael,

                      Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

                      The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

                      Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Very interesting Simon. Adds intrigue to this mystery. As I indicated with cd, people have to stop discounting something based on their own perceptions of what constitutes a "Conspiracy", and pay attention when something extraordinary occurs...like Mary M being given the main stage for a large part of this Inquest when the authorities knew beforehand that her statement was provably wrong.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        How about that? I learned a new word "trigamist." Had to look it up. I was only familiar with the guy who said "I have two wives and I think it is bigamy to admit it."

                        I remember a funny story an attorney told. He was in the Army and his first assignment was to interview a young private from the backwoods of some southern state who had been charged with bigamy. Apparently he had several wives. The attorney asked him if he realized that you had to get divorced first before you can marry again. He said the guy looked at him like he was a complete idiot and said "do you have any idea what a divorce cost?"

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Polygyny.
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Hi Michael,

                            Keep your eye on Mary Malcolm.

                            The woman of real interest at the Elizabeth Stride inquest was Elizabeth Watts. You might remember she was being blackmailed [she showed her anonymous letter from Shepton Mallet to Coroner Wynne Baxter].

                            Elizabeth Watts appears to have been a serial philanderer and trigamist. Life was catching up with her. In 1888, three of her four husbands, including the one supposedly ship-wrecked in the Indian Ocean, were very much alive.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Ok Simon, I re-read Marys testimony and its curious that the story she gives for her sister has many similar characteristics with what is known about Stride....that she once had a coffee house in Poplar, that she was known as "Long Liz", that she had been arrested for drunken behavior, that she had been living in the neighborhood of "tailoring jews", that she once had been in a relationship with a policeman, ...then Watts shows up Tuesday Oct 23 to say Malcolm gave "false" evidence.

                            So...why would Malcom do that, and why would she use some of Liz Strides history in her story about Elizabeth Watts? Im all ears...or eyes, rather.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              My last post was to Simon before I knew that he was having some health issues. So, to keep the train of thought going, Ill revise the question to the reast on the thread....

                              Why is the story and history given by Mary Malcolm about her sister Elizabeth Watts almost identical to the known history of Liz Stride? Is it really likely that someone comes into that Inquest with a false identification of a victim but an almost identical history to the actual victim? Did Watts have a coffee shop in Polar...as Stride did, ...was Watts called "Long LIz", as its is stated Stride was....dating a policeman in the past, "among the jews" in recent times...
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                My last post was to Simon before I knew that he was having some health issues. So, to keep the train of thought going, Ill revise the question to the reast on the thread....

                                Why is the story and history given by Mary Malcolm about her sister Elizabeth Watts almost identical to the known history of Liz Stride? Is it really likely that someone comes into that Inquest with a false identification of a victim but an almost identical history to the actual victim? Did Watts have a coffee shop in Polar...as Stride did, ...was Watts called "Long LIz", as its is stated Stride was....dating a policeman in the past, "among the jews" in recent times...
                                There is an article in Ripperologist #75, called 'Cat's Cradle', by Rob Hills.
                                Rob gives a few reason's for being suspicious of George Morris, the nightwatchman PC Watkins runs to, in Mitre Square.
                                Following is a copy & paste of reason #2.

                                During the inquest into the murder of Catherine Eddowes, George Morris responded to a question asked by Mr Crawford, a solicitor acting on behalf of the police: ‘I had not quitted the warehouse between eleven and one. I had not seen Watkins before that evening.’ He also stated that his warehouse door had not been ajar more than two minutes.
                                The time of ‘between eleven and one’ would refer to the murder of Elizabeth Stride. Annie Morris was also an alleged alias of Elizabeth Stride. During the Stride inquest, the coroner questioned Michael Kidney, paramour of Elizabeth Stride. The question was asked, ‘Had deceased ever had a child by you?’ to which Michael replied ‘No. She told me a policeman used to see her at Hyde Park before she was married to Stride [i.e., John Thomas Stride, whom she married on 7 March 1869]. I never heard her say she had a child by a policeman.’
                                In 1869, George Morris was a serving Metropolitan policeman with T Division - Hammersmith. A letter dated 19 October 1888 and signed ‘An Accessory’ states that ‘The crime committed in Mitre Square city and those in the district of Whitechapel were perpetrated by an ex police constable of the Metropolitan Police who was dismissed the force through certain connection with a prostitute.’
                                George Morris retired from the Met on 13 January 1882 age 47 due to ill health (stomach disease).

                                He was born on 8 February 1834 in Teddington. In the 1841 census, George is shown to have been residing with his family at an address in Teddington High Street. His parents are John and Elizabeth Morris. John’s occupation is recorded as a labourer. George is 8 years old at this time. He has an older brother William aged 17, Henry aged 11 and a sister Mary Ann aged 14. His younger brothers are Thomas aged 5 and Frederick aged 2.
                                I don't know the sender or recipient of the letter mentioned.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X