Was Israel Schwartz a form of Patsy

[drstrange169]

>> Again, too bad they didnt show such confidence in him at the Inquest into Liz Strides cause of death.<<

Since we don't know why he wasn't there, we can't know that they didn't "show confidence in him" at the time of the inquest.

[drstrange169]

>> Wess translated for Goldstein, he knew Israel, thats why I said its probable he did. But perhaps you have different conclusions.<<

Could you post how it is proven Wess knew Israel Schwartz? Thanks in advance.

[drstrange169]

>>You are aware the he was the club steward, on the club payroll? No...I guess youre not.<<

Correct, I'm not. Perhaps you could enlighten me, how much was he paid?

[drstrange169]

>>Eagle was a paid speaker at the club.<<


Evidence? This must have been an extremely profitable club. I wonder why they didn't pay speakers like William Morris?

[Michael W Richards]

>>Eagle was a paid speaker at the club.<<


Evidence? This must have been an extremely profitable club. I wonder why they didn't pay speakers like William Morris?

William Morris would have turned down a fee anyway, but that's besides the point. The Wess/Schwartz connection was discovered a few years back by the fine researcher Debra Arif(?), sorry if I misspelled the surname, a long time member here, and it originates in Paris. Where many anarchists gathered at that time. Irish and Jewish.

I don't have a copy of the payroll, although some information might be in the Arbeter Fraint issue later in November that Lynn Cates had translated for us. There was a modest fee for speaking there, and the club steward did receive some compensation. It might be argued that Lave, a photographer who apparently did work for the club, might have been allowed use of a cottage in exchange for his services.

12:30-Wess leaves, Lave is by the gates smoking, neither see each other. Lave doesn't see anyone. Issak K returns to the club.
12:35-Likely Wess and Liz Stride converse on the street, seen by PC Smith. A young couple is seen by Fanny Mortimer.
12:40-12:45- Eagle returns, Lave is still by the gate, neither see each other. Heschberg and Gillen and Issak Kozebrodski say they were alerted to a body in the passageway, by Louis. Issac K is sent out by Louis. Spooner arrives shortly thereafter. Eagle "couldn't be sure" if he had to step around a dying woman.
12:45-Israel Schwartz says he was just passing by the club when he sees Liz Stride outside on the street being manhandled by a strong looking man. The man yells an insult to local Jews, and Israel notices a man in a doorway across the street smoking a pipe. No-one else sees or hears any of this, and Fanny Mortimer described the street as deserted during the period she was off an on at the door, from 12:30..."nearly the whole time", until 12:50, where she remains there continuously. James Brown sees the young couple. She is not wearing a flower.
12:55- Fanny sees Leon Goldstein pass the gates, look in, and keep going.
1:00-Fanny indoors, having seen nothing on the streets from 12:50 until 1am other than Leon Goldstein at 12:55-56.
1:00**-Louis says he arrives at the same time Fanny is at her door. "precisely".

Blackwell estimates the cut at somewhere around 12:46-12:56 at the earliest.

Cd, I get petty with you because you stick to whatever you've decided regardless of the reasonability or rationality of it, and despite many good arguments against it. Jack the Ripper didn't magically appear after BSM left Liz alone, for one,..you don't know that BSM did leave Liz alone, and 2, because there are many good reasons to believe BSM is just a character in a story that has no real bearing on this death. I should say Astrakan Man is much the same.

[c.d.]

Cd, I get petty with you because you stick to whatever you've decided regardless of the reasonability or rationality of it, and despite many good arguments against it.

Oy vey! The irony of that statement.

c.d.

[drstrange169]

>> The Wess/Schwartz connection was discovered a few years back by the fine researcher Debra Arif(?),<<

That was a Schwartz, no first name and no link to Israel, in fact, wasn't that Schwartz Russian? So where is the connection to the Israel Schwartz of strong Jewish appearance and William Wess that you claim exists?



>>There was a modest fee for speaking there, and the club steward did receive some compensation.<<

Putting words italics isn't proof. Where is your evidence that Eagle and Deimshitz depended on the club for their livelihoods as opposed to their other jobs as jewellery dealers?



>>It might be argued that Lave, a photographer who apparently did work for the club, might have been allowed use of a cottage in exchange for his services.<<

Lots of things might be argued, I was curious about verified research.

The club didn't own any cottages, they didn't even own the club. They paid 2 pound a week rent for it. I'm not sure but I believe Lave lived on the club premises.



>>12:30-Wess leaves, Lave is by the gates smoking, neither see each other. Lave doesn't see anyone. Issak K returns to the club.<<

Which knocks the conspiracy theory on the head some what as Lave, according to you, depended on the club.




>>12:35-Likely Wess and Liz Stride converse on the street, seen by PC Smith.<<

In which case PC Smith would have I.D.ed Wess at the inquest, so not likely at all.



>>A young couple is seen by Fanny Mortimer.<<

According to Mortimer,

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."



>>12:40-12:45- Eagle returns, Lave is still by the gate, neither see each other. Heschberg and Gillen and Issak Kozebrodski say they were alerted to a body in the passageway, by Louis.<<

Hesberg indisputably, did not say he was "alerted to a body in the passageway by Louis."

Gillen and Issac were almost certainly the same person.

Need I go on?

[Michael W Richards]

>> The Wess/Schwartz connection was discovered a few years back by the fine researcher Debra Arif(?),<<

That was a Schwartz, no first name and no link to Israel, in fact, wasn't that Schwartz Russian? So where is the connection to the Israel Schwartz of strong Jewish appearance and William Wess that you claim exists?

His name is Israel Schwartz, do you expect hes blue eyed with red hair? Not sure why you added "of strong jewish appearance to the mix. I believe youre incorrect about the discovery details.

>>There was a modest fee for speaking there, and the club steward did receive some compensation.<<

Putting words italics isn't proof. Where is your evidence that Eagle and Deimshitz depended on the club for their livelihoods as opposed to their other jobs as jewellery dealers?

Since you seem to be making this a pet project pestering me with countering everything posted with some empirical evidence, why dont you prove they didn't ...italics...get any income and get back to me when you do?

>>It might be argued that Lave, a photographer who apparently did work for the club, might have been allowed use of a cottage in exchange for his services.<<

Lots of things might be argued, I was curious about verified research.

Lave worked at the club as a photographer, he lived in a cottage in the passageway, hardly a random choice of speculation. One way or another he was compensated.

The club didn't own any cottages, they didn't even own the club. They paid 2 pound a week rent for it. I'm not sure but I believe Lave lived on the club premises.

The cottages. or "tenemants" as they were referred to were on the left side of the passageway from the street, and were part of this property. Who controlled the occupancies I don't know, but Lave and some members who made cigars lived there. Interesting that Goldtstein walked past the gateway with a briefcase full of empty cigarette cartons with cigarette/cigare makers away in the "tenements".


>>12:30-Wess leaves, Lave is by the gates smoking, neither see each other. Lave doesn't see anyone. Issak K returns to the club.<<

Which knocks the conspiracy theory on the head some what as Lave, according to you, depended on the club.

What my statement that included Lave meant, was that he, Eagle and Wess didn't reporst seeing each other or anyone else at a time when 4 people say they were already in the passageway, so when when they said they saw no-one...?? I said people with club responsibilities and income dependencies did not accuraretly report what happened and at what time. A conspiracy requires they colluded, that's not necessary here actually. And disproven by the fact that other members who directly contradict them.


>>12:35-Likely Wess and Liz Stride converse on the street, seen by PC Smith.<<

In which case PC Smith would have I.D.ed Wess at the inquest, so not likely at all.

Was he asked to? Gee...didn't know that....must be some new evidence huh? And di he get good look at the man

>>A young couple is seen by Fanny Mortimer.<<

According to Mortimer,

"No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."

Really, you missed this? "A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.^[1]"

>>12:40-12:45- Eagle returns, Lave is still by the gate, neither see each other. Heschberg and Gillen and Issak Kozebrodski say they were alerted to a body in the passageway, by Louis.<<

Hesberg indisputably, did not say he was "alerted to a body in the passageway by Louis."

Yeah, that's worth being contentious over. 4 people at 12:40-12:45, end of story.

Gillen and Issac were almost certainly the same person.

Well, that's another new tidbit, prove that would you please...as well as the bit about compensation for services being nothing, Thanks in advance.

Need I go on?

Not for my benefit, that's for sure. Or for anyone who actually cares about what really happened there.

Its amazing how petty others get too eh cd, or is that unnoticed?

[Michael W Richards]

Cd, I get petty with you because you stick to whatever you've decided regardless of the reasonability or rationality of it, and despite many good arguments against it.

Oy vey! The irony of that statement.

c.d.

Anytime you find a reasonable, rational explanation for a serial killer who mutilates women immediately after cutting their throats twice being the most probable suspect for a murder which involved a single cut and no mutilations whatsoever, hey...Im listening cd.

[JeffHamm]

Let's look at Fanny Mortimer's full press reported statement:

"I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."


Now, Fanny Mortimer's statement is that she went and viewed the body (she describes events of a man touching the body. what it looks like, etc) If that is not true, she's embellishing, making everything that follows suspect so what follows is on the basis that she did, in fact, go and view the scene. If this premise is incorrect, what follows cannot be relied upon.

There are 4 bits in particular that I want to focus on, which I've underlined, and will refer to as statement A-D (A & D being connected to whom she saw I'll deal with last).

Statement B, that Stride appeared to be respectable based upon her clothing, fits with other testimony concerning Stride's preparation for going out (she asked to borrow a brush for her clothes, and other signs she was considering her appearance). This behaviour has been argued as evidence that Stride was planning on meeting someone in particular, a meeting with a lover is commonly suggested. And indeed, there's nothing inconsistent with that as an explanation. However, it is also suggested that such behaviour is inconsistent with her going out to solicit, which is an unwarranted conclusion. Soliciting would be a highly competitive pursuit given that it was resorted to, on a causal basis, by a large number of destitute women in the area who were living hand to mouth. Looking more presentable would therefore be something that would be advantageous. We can recall Polly Nichols statement about how she would get her doss money soon as she had such a "jolly bonnet", for example. Looking a bit less down and out would be economically beneficial. In other words, Strides' attention to her appearances does not really provide us with evidence for or against either possibility; either she was meeting someone in particular, or she wasn't; either she was soliciting, or she wasn't. While each of us is free to bet upon whatever option you choose, the only rational inferences we should be drawing is that "for some reason, Stride seems to have paid attention to her appearances that morning".

Statement C, (clothes slightly disrranged...): This is another interesting statement that I think has been overlooked. Unfortunately, it is similarly insufficient to draw any conclusions from, but I think that is worth pointing out. It is often suggested that there is no indication that whomever killed Stride intended to mutilate her. However, if her clothing was disarranged and her legs were exposed, this is consistent with her killer starting to raise her clothing to access her abdomen in order to begin mutilations, but stopping for some reason (enter interruption based explanations). Unfortunately, it is too vague to determine if the disarrangement is simply what one might expect given she was attacked and put to the ground - it would be a bit much to think her clothing wouldn't be out of place simply due to that alone. Again, her statement, to the extent it is to be believed, does provide a basis for considering there may have been an attempt to proceed on to mutilations, but unfortunately, it is no more than a hint and so leaves us again with nothing to rule in or rule out, and we're left only with the conclusion "We don't know if her murderer intended further mutilations"; he might have and he might not have.

The statements A and D are interesting. In A she indicates the only man she saw passing down the road was "black bag man", who was later identified and cleared. That means she may have seen the couple while she was out (they were not a singular man nor on the move, and statement A is about singular men and being on the move). However, If she did see them standing there, I think it is safe to say she didn't go up to them at the time and speak with them. If she didn't see them herself, then she is reporting something she found out later. And that becomes an interesting set of possibilities, which hinge upon who she is referring to with the first use of the indefinite pronoun "they" (the on in bold) in this part of her statement D "...but they told me they did not hear a sound." as the 2nd "they" clearly refers to the couple.

Ok, "they" could refer to the couple themselves, or it could just as equally refer to "other people from whom she's heard the story of this couple". If she is referring to the couple, then she spoke with them. The only reasonable time for that to have happened is when she went to view the body, and therefore that couple wasn't Stride and her killer. This couple would be the one described by the PC I believe? (though I may have that wrong - I know there's one couple described where the man is wearing the long coat to his ankles - the "not tonight another night" couple). So if Fanny Mortimer spoke to them at the crime scene, then we can disregard that couple as a potential sighting of Stride and JtR. They would also become an important lead, and it is unfortunate we have no idea who they were or what they saw.

If, however, she's just reporting 2nd hand information, then her statement is not testimony of what she herself witnessed, and so does not constitute anything more than repeating a rumor. This interpretation also casts doubt on whether or not she saw the couple herself, or if that is just more of the rumor she's heard from elsewhere.

Unfortunately, both of those are also entirely possible given the inherent ambiguity of indefinite pronouns and how they are used in conversational English.

And this is where I find myself every time I look at the Stride case. There is what appears at first blush evidence to support whatever theory I start from, simply because the evidence we have is so tantalizingly ambiguous and fits with just about any view one wants to take, and I'm forever forced into the only conclusion one can make "Either Stride was killed by JtR, or she wasn't", and that's not very satisfying (nor is it a conclusion really - it's the state of "no conclusion can be drawn", and I should probably use the term inference rather than conclusion).

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Unfortunately, both of those are also entirely possible given the inherent ambiguity of indefinite pronouns and how they are used in conversational English.

- Jeff

This point is all I have the time to address now Jeff. People of any historical period are still people, the way they express their thoughts and emotions are as varied as snowflakes. Its what makes each of us unique. That also makes us identifiable within groups,.. and patterns, structures, things like embellishments become signatures. How they express themselves is far more revealing than what specific words they used, modern or Victorian. Lots of factors like level of education come into play there. It also helps isolate liars.

[JeffHamm]

This point is all I have the time to address now Jeff. People of any historical period are still people, the way they express their thoughts and emotions are as varied as snowflakes. Its what makes each of us unique. That also makes us identifiable within groups,.. and patterns, structures, things like embellishments become signatures. How they express themselves is far more revealing than what specific words they used, modern or Victorian. Lots of factors like level of education come into play there. It also helps isolate liars.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? While I agree that language is used differently between people, and its use changes over time, etc, I'm not sure how that applies to the inherent ambiguity of indefinite pronouns? They're called indefinite because they do not specifically identify the referent, and that has to be understood through the context. Unfortunately, the context we have does not disambiguate her statement, meaning she could be referring to the couple or she could be referring to the more "global they", meaning "people say". And what her intentions were with that statement are lost to us because we can not ask her to clarify her meaning. And we cannot just decide on one of them, as it's a coin toss as to whether or not we guess right, leaving us at an open ended point in the analysis of her statement. And it's a critical fork in that road, as which interpretation one considers greatly changes the conclusion one gets to (sometimes it doesn't matter, which is nice, but in this instance it does make a big difference).

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Correcting errors and misconceptions isn't petty, it's the point of research. Petty is finding out there is another meaning for a word and not acknowledging the new nuance it gives to the subject.

[drstrange169]

Hello Jeff,

Statement C:

P.C. Lamb specifically said the clothing was not disturbed, given that it was his job to note such things, I'd regard his testimony as the more reliable. Mortimer could have been gilding the lily or she might have been referring to the scarf being pulled unnaturally.

Sorry ... I've been called away, I'll come back to this post!

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Statement C:

P.C. Lamb specifically said the clothing was not disturbed, given that it was his job to note such things, I'd regard his testimony as the more reliable. Mortimer could have been gilding the lily or she might have been referring to the scarf being pulled unnaturally.

Sorry ... I've been called away, I'll come back to this post!

Ah, yes, I had forgotten his statement, and I agree, it's his job to note such things and so his statement would have to be viewed with more weight. This was the first time I had seen any suggestion that her clothes might have indicated an intention to progress and that is what struck me as worth noting for consideration. which is what we're doing now I suppose. Considering is not the same thing as accepting, of course.

- Jeff