Schwartz v. Lawende

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

not my best copy & paste. This is from the MA:

C: When you were called in what direction were you going?
L: I was coming towards Berner-street. Police-constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. There is a constable on fixed-point duty at the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, and he came off duty at one a.m. The man on the beat then has to do his duty.

If the fixed-point officer came off duty at 1am and Smith was at Gower' Walk at that point, there might have been a protocol issue. Just maybe, Smith 'tweaked' his timings, to avoid any trouble with his bosses.

Hi NBFN,

I think those on fixed point, given their duties were subsumed by the beat PC, would probably just leave when it was 1 o'clock and didn't have to wait for the beat PC to relieve them. The beat PC would know that they were gone on their next round (and given they had to keep track of the time and their beat durations, would know when they passed him for the last time).

Fixed point PCs presumably would have to have a time piece of some sort to consult, either being at a location in sight of a clock, or perhaps were issued (or required to have) a watch on them. They would be required to record in their notebooks the time of any events they noted down, and unlike a beat PC who is likely to pass a clock at some point on their rounds, a fixed point PC can either see a clock from that location, or they cannot. If not, they would have to have a watch in order to do their job I would think. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems reasonable that they must have some way of accessing the time.

I also have a vague memory of something like a senior police officer would make the rounds to relieve the fixed point PCs, but that means they are relieved over a period of time starting at 1, rather than all finish up at 1 precisely. That seems fairly impractical, and I may be just recalling how senior officers would make the rounds to ensure the PCs were doing their beats according to regulations, etc, and have let that memory blur into relieving fixed point PCs.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Thanks again NBFN,

There's something odd about these bits "...is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5....fixed-point men ceased their duty at 1 a.m.", the first seems irrelevant (who cares about duties that end at 5 with regards to a murder around 1ish?), so I'm wondering if the "9 to 5" an expression of the day that is no longer used, or perhaps a sort of Cockney Slang term? The latter clearly contradicts the first. Given the time of the crime, the latter seems the more likely relevant information, but it makes me wonder why the first, obviously irrelevant times, are even mentioned?

Ignoring my pedantic concerns, what seems important is that PC Lamb says that the PC who followed him is on fixed point duty until 1am (I think that's what he means at least), so that would seem to suggest that the men from the club cannot contact PC Lamb and the other PC until after 1 am (otherwise only PC Lamb would follow the men, as a PC on fixed point duty wouldn't be allowed to leave their station). The 9- 5 bit, though, is weird, and I'm not sure what that means, as taken literally, it seems to make nonsense out of the whole statement.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

not my best copy & paste. This is from the MA:

C: When you were called in what direction were you going?
L: I was coming towards Berner-street. Police-constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. There is a constable on fixed-point duty at the corner of Grove-street, Commercial-road, and he came off duty at one a.m. The man on the beat then has to do his duty.

If the fixed-point officer came off duty at 1am and Smith was at Gower' Walk at that point, there might have been a protocol issue. Just maybe, Smith 'tweaked' his timings, to avoid any trouble with his bosses.

[JeffHamm]

Lamb: When I was fetched I was going in the direction of Berner-street. Constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. The constable who followed me down is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5 at the end of Grove-street. is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5, and then the men on the beats did the whole duty.

Presumably the fixed-point constable would have been a little disappointed with Smith, if he had not made it to the fixed-point by 1am.

Some info on 426H in this JtRForum thread.

Thanks again NBFN,

There's something odd about these bits "...is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5....fixed-point men ceased their duty at 1 a.m.", the first seems irrelevant (who cares about duties that end at 5 with regards to a murder around 1ish?), so I'm wondering if the "9 to 5" an expression of the day that is no longer used, or perhaps a sort of Cockney Slang term? The latter clearly contradicts the first. Given the time of the crime, the latter seems the more likely relevant information, but it makes me wonder why the first, obviously irrelevant times, are even mentioned?

Ignoring my pedantic concerns, what seems important is that PC Lamb says that the PC who followed him is on fixed point duty until 1am (I think that's what he means at least), so that would seem to suggest that the men from the club cannot contact PC Lamb and the other PC until after 1 am (otherwise only PC Lamb would follow the men, as a PC on fixed point duty wouldn't be allowed to leave their station). The 9- 5 bit, though, is weird, and I'm not sure what that means, as taken literally, it seems to make nonsense out of the whole statement.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lamb: When I was fetched I was going in the direction of Berner-street. Constable Smith is on the Berner-street beat. The constable who followed me down is on fixed-point duty from 9 to 5 at the end of Grove-street. All the fixed-point men ceased their duty at 1 a.m., and then the men on the beats did the whole duty.

Presumably the fixed-point constable would have been a little disappointed with Smith, if he had not made it to the fixed-point by 1am.

Some info on 426H in this JtRForum thread.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

From Michael's post (1056 above) we have: "PC Lamb, yada, yada..."I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H."

This isn't a question solely for Michael though, but I was wondering if we know anything about PC 426H? I've had a quick look through the inquest testimony on the site, but I don't see him as a witness (I may have overlooked though). I was wondering if his name was recorded anywhere, and whether or not we have his beat information (or even part of it). While it may not add anything, if we had some idea of his beat then it might help in some small way to limit potential escape routes Stride's killer could have taken. Might his beat have made it tricky, for example, for JtR to get from Berner Street to Mitre Square along some potential route. I know the typically described route is back to Commercial, then to Whitechapel, then down towards Mitre Square area, so just wondering if 426H's beat might interfere with that path? Given where he and PC Lamb are found by the men, it seems unlikely, but you don't know the answer if you don't ask the question.

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

A few months ago I highlighted that the name 'Yaffa' when used as a forename, is a girl's name meaning Beautiful, the equivalent of the name Bella.

However, as a surname, it applies to both male and female, so the individual named Yaffa, could have been either.

I would assume that Yaffa was a man. just with a feminine surname.


RD

It seems s/he was not in the editor's office when Wess left the club.

Wess: At the back of the [front ground] meal-room there is a kitchen with a window into the passage, which leads into the yard. ... At the back of it, but in no way connected with it, is a printing office, which consists of two rooms. The room adjoining the kitchen is used as a composing-room. The compositors left their work on Saturday last, I believe, about two o'clock; but the editor, who is also a member, was present in or near the club all day, and indeed until the discovery.
...
About twenty minutes past twelve I had occasion to go to the printing office. I went into the yard to get there, and proceeded to the street through the club-house again by the passage door. Noticing the yard passage gates were open, I looked towards them, but did not actually go up to them. ... The editor was in the printing office, reading.

According to Arbeter Fraint, Yaffa was there at the time of the discovery.

AF: From excitement he jumped off the cart, ran through the back door into the club and raised an alarm. Immediately Comrade Gilyarovsky ran into the printing shop and editor’s office that are located in the same building as the club, but separated in the back by the yard. There was no one in the printing shop. Comrades Krants and Yaffa were busy in the editor’s office.

Phillip Krantz seems to have made no mention of Yaffa, at the inquest. Presumably Yaffa reached the editor's office via the side door of the club, after Wess left at about 12:20. I wonder what the rules were regarding member's entering the Arbeter Fraint offices?

Arbeter Fraint, October 12, 1888:
Notice
The new rules have already been worked out and take effect on Friday the 12th of October. As with all matters pertaining to the club, this will be given over to a committee, and at the next meeting the committee will be elected. All members are requested to come on time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Secretary's story has two potential explanations; it either relates Schwartz being chased by Pipeman, or Diemshutz & Kozebrodski looking for a policeman. The first choice is complicated by some members who choose to believe the interpreter used by Schwartz might have been Wess.
If that were the case then as Schwartz has already told his story to his interpreter, the interpreter knows the man being chased would be Schwartz, and not some fleeing murderer. Therefore, either, the interpreter was not Wess, or the chase did not involve Schwartz.
They can't have it both ways.

I highly doubt Wess was the interpreter for Schwartz. When you say, "If that were the case then as Schwartz has already told his story to his interpreter," are you referring to the Abberline interview? I see Wess's comments to the Echo as occurring at about the same time.

Echo: The Club itself (proceeds the reporter), which is next door to the large gate, is now closed, but all this afternoon members and others who have special business there, are admitted after knocking at the door. The committee of the institution held a meeting this morning, at which the crime was talked over, and it was decided not to admit any stranger without the payment of a fee.

Then follows the man pursued report.

Star: Information which may be important was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder.

[Michael W Richards]

The Secretary's story has two potential explanations; it either relates Schwartz being chased by Pipeman, or Diemshutz & Kozebrodski looking for a policeman. The first choice is complicated by some members who choose to believe the interpreter used by Schwartz might have been Wess.
If that were the case then as Schwartz has already told his story to his interpreter, the interpreter knows the man being chased would be Schwartz, and not some fleeing murderer. Therefore, either, the interpreter was not Wess, or the chase did not involve Schwartz.
They can't have it both ways.

Its almost certain that Wess, who knew Israel, interpreted for him. As he did Goldstein.

[Michael W Richards]

Right, Isaacs says someone suggested "someone should go find a policeman", it's just he doesn't know who suggested it.

No Wick, thats not what he is recorded as saying, as has been posted here numerous times..."I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers".

That doesn't mean he went alone, he could just as easily have run in the same direction as Diemshutz, it doesn't mean they are together, but neither does it mean they are by themselves. If they are running 10 feet apart, or 20 ft apart, are they still together?

He says Louis or some member "sent him", and uses I to describe what he did from that point until he sees Eagle. This isnt that difficult, challenging what people have chosen to believe always is. Its not unclear Wick, dont obfuscate the obvious with spurious and unproven speculation about what he really meant. He said what he really meant.

To a third person, it is still "two men running", regardless how far apart they were. In fact, for someone else to think one man was chasing the other they must have been some distance apart while running along Fairclough st. They were still both doing the same thing, running to find a policeman.

I have some serious issues with that report anyway, but more to the point, if you believe that the witness knew English, could speak it properly, knew the difference between first and second person, and knew whether they were with someone or not, then this conversation is a waste of both our times.

What you are defending is a belief, a belief that when Louis says Issac[s] he didnt mean someone named Issacs, he meant Issac Kozebrodski, a belief that when Issac Kozebrodski said he was sent by Louis or some member he really means he went with Louis, a belief that a statement made to a reporter would have to conform to some evidence guidelines observed in court, but your beliefs are not what is actually said. He doesnt ever say he went with Louis, nor does Louis ever say he went with Issac Kozebrodski. Havent you noticed that anytime Louis speaks to the public its Issac[s].

[Wickerman]

Now, Issac says he went out at the request OF Louis OR some other member...so your contention is that Issac doesnt remember he was with Louis or some other member ? Because what youve been suggesting is that Louis accompanied Issac Kozebrodski, which neither man ever actually says in those words. Issac then recounts, in singular first person, what he did and when he found Eagle who had attracted PC Lamb. In the last quote you posted Louis says we couldnt find a constable, but doesnt mention he did find Spooner. Who accompanied him back to the gates, Issac K and Eagle and Lamb arrived together.

You know language is a wonderful thing, and since we both understand English it seems, we both should be able to see what you are using as an argument is wholly insufficient proof of your interpretation of what was actually said.

Louis always says he went with Issac[s] and Issac Kozebrodski says Louis or some other member sent him. Issac also PROVABLY did not return to the club with Louis and Spooner. Lets stop pretending that Issac Kozebrodski doesnt know whether hes alone or with someone, and that you have categorical proof that Louis did not in fact leave with someone else he calls Issac[s].

Right, Isaacs says someone suggested "someone should go find a policeman", it's just he doesn't know who suggested it.

That doesn't mean he went alone, he could just as easily have run in the same direction as Diemshutz, it doesn't mean they are together, but neither does it mean they are by themselves. If they are running 10 feet apart, or 20 ft apart, are they still together?
To a third person, it is still "two men running", regardless how far apart they were. In fact, for someone else to think one man was chasing the other they must have been some distance apart while running along Fairclough st.
They were still both doing the same thing, running to find a policeman.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael.
Here, this extract from the Irish Times, 1 Oct.:
"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood in the gutter terminating in a hideous pool near the club door showed but too plainly what had happened.

Both men ran off without delay to find a policeman,..."

Both men means Diemshutz & Kozebrodski.

I think "both men" clearly means they both left, the report did not say they left "together".

Here, in the Morning Advertiser, 1 Oct. Diemschutz is quoted as saying the man who came out of the club with him (Kozebrodski AKA "Isaacs"), went with him to find a policeman.

AKA according to whom? And if youve read anything Ive ever posted about this particular murder I've already pointed out that Louis did not arrive at "precisely 1am" as he stated, and that 3 people give different discovery times than Louis, between 15 and 20 minutes before 1am. So using a quote from Diemshitz carries little empirical weight. Also, though you know this already, Louis is never quoted as saying Issac Kozebrodski, its always Issac[s], you obviously, like many, believe he said Issac[s], pluralizing his given name, instead of accepting the far more probable Issacs as a surname.

"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

Here the "we" is explained, the "we" is Diemshutz & Kozebrodski.

You lecture me on what Issac really meant, how pluralizing a surname seems logical, or what Louis actually meant, but in both instances above you fail to notice that neither of those quotes state they left together. That they both left is accurate, that they left together is your interpretation...because its never stated that way.

Now, Issac says he went out at the request OF Louis OR some other member...so your contention is that Issac doesnt remember he was with Louis or some other member ? Because what youve been suggesting is that Louis accompanied Issac Kozebrodski, which neither man ever actually says in those words. Issac then recounts, in singular first person, what he did and when he found Eagle who had attracted PC Lamb. In the last quote you posted Louis says we couldnt find a constable, but doesnt mention he did find Spooner. Who accompanied him back to the gates, Issac K and Eagle and Lamb arrived together.

You know language is a wonderful thing, and since we both understand English it seems, we both should be able to see what you are using as an argument is wholly insufficient proof of your interpretation of what was actually said.

Louis always says he went with Issac[s] and Issac Kozebrodski says Louis or some other member sent him. Issac also PROVABLY did not return to the club with Louis and Spooner. Lets stop pretending that Issac Kozebrodski doesnt know whether hes alone or with someone, and that you have categorical proof that Louis did not in fact leave with someone else he calls Issac[s].

[Wickerman]

I apologise for not having more time at the moment to address this, I quickly searched 1 papers coverage on the Inquest and transcripts, and here is what I found.....

Louis Diemshitz, The Inquest transcript, Daily Telegraph, Oct 2nd, 1888........."A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased".

William Wess, same day and source, "I went into the club, and called my brother, and we left together by the front door."

Obviously they are speaking for someone, which is the basis of the rules your on about, hearsay,..but this was an Inquest transcript, as formal a source as youll get, and clearly they do not restrict themselves to first person. Now, when accompanied.....

Morris Eagle, same, same.."One of the policemen turned his lamp on the deceased and sent me to the station for the inspector,"

PC Lamb, yada, yada..."I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H."


On both sides of that coin, alone or accompanied, the witnesses clearly articulated which. And again, Issac K's interview, the one that our hosts have stored in the archives, isnt in quotations, but Ill see if I can find one when I get a moment.

Hi Michael.
Here, this extract from the Irish Times, 1 Oct.:
"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes enveloping it were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood in the gutter terminating in a hideous pool near the club door showed but too plainly what had happened.

Both men ran off without delay to find a policeman,..."

Both men means Diemshutz & Kozebrodski.

Here, in the Morning Advertiser, 1 Oct. Diemschutz is quoted as saying the man who came out of the club with him (Kozebrodski AKA "Isaacs"), went with him to find a policeman.
"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

Here the "we" is explained, the "we" is Diemshutz & Kozebrodski.

[Wickerman]

If Wess spoke to Diemschitz about the night's events, after arriving at the club later in the morning - highly likely in my opinion - he would indeed know the parties involved in the search for police. However, that is a completely different story to a man, who was not a club member, chasing another man along Fairclough St, who escapes. Essentially identical to the end of the story told by Schwartz, however. What a coincidence!



We also read that Wess was told the pursuing man's name. Had the man not been recognised, he must have still given his name to someone, and related his story of pursuing the man he believed to be the murderer. Apparently, he was not alone in that belief. Spooner said nothing about chasing a man up Berner St, let alone east on Fairclough, so the similarities of Wess's comments to the account given by Schwartz, remain unexplained.

The Secretary's story has two potential explanations; it either relates Schwartz being chased by Pipeman, or Diemshutz & Kozebrodski looking for a policeman. The first choice is complicated by some members who choose to believe the interpreter used by Schwartz might have been Wess.
If that were the case then as Schwartz has already told his story to his interpreter, the interpreter knows the man being chased would be Schwartz, and not some fleeing murderer. Therefore, either, the interpreter was not Wess, or the chase did not involve Schwartz.
They can't have it both ways.

[Michael W Richards]

Quite the contrary Michael, interviews with reporters are often published as first person, or third-person responses. It all depends on the editor and how he chooses to present the story. If I recall, some of us on Casebook looked for an actual verbatim interview with Koz, and we couldn't find one. That's an interview where Koz's replies are given in quotations. Do you see any?

I apologise for not having more time at the moment to address this, I quickly searched 1 papers coverage on the Inquest and transcripts, and here is what I found.....

Louis Diemshitz, The Inquest transcript, Daily Telegraph, Oct 2nd, 1888........."A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me, and when we reached the yard he took hold of the head of the deceased".

William Wess, same day and source, "I went into the club, and called my brother, and we left together by the front door."

Obviously they are speaking for someone, which is the basis of the rules your on about, hearsay,..but this was an Inquest transcript, as formal a source as youll get, and clearly they do not restrict themselves to first person. Now, when accompanied.....

Morris Eagle, same, same.."One of the policemen turned his lamp on the deceased and sent me to the station for the inspector,"

PC Lamb, yada, yada..."I ran, followed by another constable - 426 H."


On both sides of that coin, alone or accompanied, the witnesses clearly articulated which. And again, Issac K's interview, the one that our hosts have stored in the archives, isnt in quotations, but Ill see if I can find one when I get a moment.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wess is only relating a story 2nd or 3rd hand, he wasn't a witness, so he doesn't know the parties involved.

If Wess spoke to Diemschitz about the night's events, after arriving at the club later in the morning - highly likely in my opinion - he would indeed know the parties involved in the search for police. However, that is a completely different story to a man, who was not a club member, chasing another man along Fairclough St, who escapes. Essentially identical to the end of the story told by Schwartz, however. What a coincidence!

The person who told Wess apparently recognised Diemshutz, but not Spooner, and that is what we read from Wess.

We also read that Wess was told the pursuing man's name. Had the man not been recognised, he must have still given his name to someone, and related his story of pursuing the man he believed to be the murderer. Apparently, he was not alone in that belief. Spooner said nothing about chasing a man up Berner St, let alone east on Fairclough, so the similarities of Wess's comments to the account given by Schwartz, remain unexplained.

How could this confusion over who was the murderer have occurred? A little while back I suggested that Stride may have been murdered by people in the Arbeter Fraint offices. Had Stride been in the yard with Parcelman, it is conceivable that he escaped, while Stride with her bad leg, did not. Anyone on the scene may have come to the reasonable conclusion that the escaping Parcelman was the murderer. A non-member club attendee may have been the pursuer, which would explain how Wess came to be told this man's name.

Some members like to ask why Schwartz would have gone to the police and told half-truths and/or lies. Simple - the Echo report meant the genie was out of the bottle - it was up to Schwartz to put it back in. Why Schwartz, is another question.