Schwartz v. Lawende

[Wickerman]

Actually Wick I believe your response above is just a self serving opinion, and certainly not based on any kind of statistical data or validation. We are talking about an individual who others believe went out searching for help with a companion. He would naturally.....since as youll note the party giving the statement is giving it to a reporter, not to a magistrate or a jury,...mention someone being with him if that were the case. Not only that, you have him saying... very clearly... "I was sent..."...

You may think of it as opinion, but it is a fact. It's an uncomfortable fact for your theory, but you can talk with any solicitor, lawyer, judge, magistrate, or anyone connected with the courts, you are required to reply in the first person singular, unless instructed otherwise. Newspaper editors & even reporters often follow the same guidelines.

What you seem to be overlooking is Diemshutz & Kozebrodski departed from the same yard, they ran in the same direction, they reached the same destination, they picked up the same witness (Spooner), it doesn't matter if they ran 6 feet apart, or 20 feet apart, they both ran for a policeman, and returned. The only difference being Koz. continued to search, he went up to Commercial Rd. to meet with Eagle, whereas Diem. & Spooner returned to the yard.

Wess is only relating a story 2nd or 3rd hand, he wasn't a witness, so he doesn't know the parties involved. The person who told Wess apparently recognised Diemshutz, but not Spooner, and that is what we read from Wess.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Michael,

... between Israel and Joseph only 1 had a possible witness. Not one supporting shred of evidence exists to back Israels claim that he was where he said he was, let alone that he saw and heard something critical to an investigation. ...

This was nine years ago. Do you still hold that belief today?

[Michael W Richards]

You may think of it as opinion, but it is a fact. It's an uncomfortable fact for your theory, but you can talk with any solicitor, lawyer, judge, magistrate, or anyone connected with the courts, you are required to reply in the first person singular, unless instructed otherwise. Newspaper editors & even reporters often follow the same guidelines.

Again you ignore the fact Wick that Issac was not in front of anyone official, just a reporter. It would be 100% natural to refer to yourself wwith another person as "we" under those circumstances....and he doesnt. He says "I" numerous times.

That underlined bit is to point out that your beliefs dont seem to be translated into accepted behaviours. Read a bunch of these interviews by the press....I dont have the time to copy some, but check for yourself...many if not all have witnesses that were in someones company said "we" to the press or to their friends.

Issac was interviewed that night, at the scene, I wouldnt be so quick to just assume he was an idiot and didnt know if he was 1 person running or 2.

[Wickerman]

Again you ignore the fact Wick that Issac was not in front of anyone official, just a reporter. It would be 100% natural to refer to yourself wwith another person as "we" under those circumstances....and he doesnt. He says "I" numerous times.

That underlined bit is to point out that your beliefs dont seem to be translated into accepted behaviours. Read a bunch of these interviews by the press....I dont have the time to copy some, but check for yourself...many if not all have witnesses that were in someones company said "we" to the press or to their friends.

Issac was interviewed that night, at the scene, I wouldnt be so quick to just assume he was an idiot and didnt know if he was 1 person running or 2.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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].

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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