|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 05 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemschutz:
Archive through 05 August 2001
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 01:03 am |        | It is midnight on September 29/30, 1888, and
a small wheelbarrow-type wagon, pulled by a
horse is clip-clopping down a street in the
East End of London. The driver notices an
object in the road, near a building that he
is headed for. He gets off his wagon, and
examines the object. It is windy, but he manages
to light a match. In a moment, Louis Diemschutz,
peddlar, yells for help, and runs to the building,
a socialist meeting hall. Soon members of the
socialist club join Diemschutz in the road of
Berner Street, and see the body of Elizabeth
Stride. The police are soon on the scene, and
within a day or so Louis is testifying before
a coroner's court at Stride's inquest.
Louis Diemschutz, a seller of cheap jewelry, enters and leaves our memories of history quickly,
as an accidental figure in the Ripper Tragedy,
who found a victim, yelled for help, got it, and
testified. According to Philip Sugden some legends have been built up by a questionable
newspaper interview of Diemschutz (such as Long
Liz still holding some grapes in her clenched
hand) that he never said or even contradicted
in court. But Louis is a faint ghost in a wagon
to us - somebody who could be replaced easily by
other passersby. In fact, due to certain time
problems in the murder of Long Liz, Louis' lack
of observation of the area (whether anyone might
have been lurking in the shadows) has been criticized by students of the case.
A number of weeks ago, I happened to be reviewing
the Times Indices at the 42nd Street Library, when
I was surprised to find reference to Louis in the
Index volume for 1889. I was able to return for
a closer look, and am presenting it for your
review and comments. Our Louis was in serious
trouble with the law within five months of the
murder he discovered. While not as serious as
that murder, it resulted in his disgrace.
From The TIMES of Tuesday, March 19, 1889 (p.4e):
"At the Thames Police Court before Mr. Saunders,
Louis Diemschitz (sic), an unlicensed hawker of
40, Berner - street, 84 St. George's; Samuel
Friedman, cap blocker, of 81 Weaver - street,
Spitalsfield, and Isaac Kozebrodske, a mechanic,
of 40, Old Ford-road, Bethnal-green, were charged
with being disorderly persons, and concerned
together in assaulting Israel Sunshine, Isaac
Solomons, Emanuel Snapper, and Emannuel Jacobs,
of Berner-street, St. George's. They were further
charged with assaulting Constables James Frost,
154 H, and George Harris, 289 H, while in the execution of their duty. They were also charged
with assaulting Julius Barnett. Inspector A.
Thresher, H Division, watched the case for the
Commissioners of Police. The disturbance arose
out of the demonstration by the Jewish unemployed,
which was organized by 15 Socialists on Saturday,
last. Israel Sunshine, 119 Wentworth-dwellings,
Whitechapel, said between 2 and 3 o'clock on
Saturday afternoon he was walking down Berner-street. He saw some boys and girls knocking
at the doors of the Socialist Club. Suddenly
some 20 or 30 men, armed with sticks, rushed out
of the club, and attacked everyone indiscriminately. Friedman, said "I will do for
someone to-night, and do not care if I get 12 months for it." Witness was then struck in the mouth and about the body. Neither of the prisoners struck him. Julius Barnett said on
Saturday afternoon he went down Berners-street.
A number of Socialists rushed out of the club and
attacked everyone. Frieman struck winess with
a stick. Emanuel Snapper, 5, Sheridan-street,
deposed Friedman was the ringleader of the Socialists. Witness was struck about the body.
He saw Diemshitz strike the people. The disturbance arose through the Socialists marching
to the great synagogue. Witness saw the police
officers pulled into the Socialists' Club, and
when there they were assaulted. Constable Frost
said after the Socialist meeting a crowd of 200
or 300 persons got outside the Socialists' Club
in Berner-street. Witness saw Diemshitz and Friedman come out with their coats off, followed by about 30 other persons. A free fight then
began, through the Socialists attacking the people
outside. Witness told Diemschitz he was a police
officer, and tried to stop him from striking one
of the witnesses, but the prisoner took no notice
of him. Diemshitz aftermwards made a savage kick
at witness, who fell backwards, and the blow
caught him on the leg. Witness caught hold of him, but he pulled away. Witness was then dragged
into the passage of the club, whence he was
assaulted by a number of men and women. During the struggle the prisoner Kosebrodske struck
him a blow on the head with a broom handle. In
trying to get out of the place he was again
assaulted. Witness felt the effects of the
assaults very much. He denied striking Diemschitz
first. Constable Harris gave further evidence;
and Mr. Saunders at this stage commanded the
prisoners until Wednesday, and agreed to accept bail for their appearances."
From THE TIMES of Thursday, March 21, 1889 (p.4e):
"At the THAMES Police-court, before Mr. Saunders, Lewis (sic) Diemschutz, an unlicensed hawker, of
40, Berner-street, 84 St. George's - in - the -
east, Samuel Friedman, cap blocker, of 31 Weaver -
street, Spitalsfields, and Issac Kozenbrodske,
machinist, of 40 Old Ford - road, Bethnal - green,
surrendered to their bail on a charge of being
disorderly persons, and concerned together in
assaulting Israle Sunshine, Isaac Solomons, Emanuel Snapper, Emanuel Jacobs and Julius Barnett. They were further charged with assaulting Constables Frost, 154 H, and George
Harris, 269 H, while in the execution of their
duty. Mr. W. M. Thompson defended. The conflict
arose out of the procession of the unemployed, which demonstration was organized by the Socialists, to the great Tabernacle on Saturday
last. The evidence showed that after the demonstration the Socialists adjourned to their club in Berner-street, St. George's, before which
a large crowd gathered. Suddenly some 30 of the
Socialists rushed out of the club and attacked the people with sticks and other weapons, including a sauce pan. The prisoners were sworn
to as being the ringleaders, while Friedman was
heard to say, "I will do for some one to night,
and don't care if I get 12 months for it."
Constable Frost told Friedman he was a police
officer, and tried to stop him from striking one of the witnesses, but he took no notice of him.
Diemschutz afterwards made a savage kick at witness, and the blow caught him on the leg. Frost was draged into the club, where he was assaulted by a number of men and a woman. During
the struggle the prisoner Kozenbrdoske struck him a blow on the head with a broom handle. That
prisoner also struck Constable Harris a blow on the side of the head. After hearing further
evidence, Mr. Saunders committed the prisoners
for trial. They were allowed out on the same
bail as before."
From THE TIMES of Friday, April 26, 1889 (p. 10a):
"COUNTY OF LONDON SESSIONS"
"(Before the Chairman, Sir F. M. Edlem, Q.C.)"
"The Chairman sat yesterday at the Sessions-house,
Clerkenwell, to hear cases arrising north of the
Thames."
"Lewis (sic) Diemschitz (sic), 27, and Isaac
Kozebrodski (sic), 19, surrendered to their
bail to answer an indictment for making a riot and
rout, and for assaulting various persons. A third
man, Samuel Friedman, who was indicted with the
defendants did not surrender to his bail when called. Mr. Gill and Mr. Partridge prosecuted
on behalf of the Commissioner of Police; and
Mr. W. M. Thompson represented the defendants.
The alledged disturbance occurred on March 16,
on which day there had been a procession of the
Jewish unemployed in the East - End. After the
dispersal of the procession, many of those composing it returned to the International Workmen's Club, Berner-street, Commercial-road, E., of which they were members, and from which
the procession had started. A crowd of some 200
or 300 persons, who had been following the procession, assembled outside the club, and began to annoy those inside by throwing stones, hooting,
and knocking on the door. The defendant Diemschitz, steward of the club, sent for the
police, but when they arrived those inside the
club assumed the defensive, and, rushing out in a
body, attacked the crowd with broom sticks,
walking sticks, and umbrellas. It was stated that the defendants bore a prominent part in the
fight, and that Diemschitz strruck and kicked plain clothes constable Frost, who interfered.
Frost attemted to arrest Diemshitz, but was dragged into the club, where he was beaten and
kicked. On the conclusion of the case for the
prosecution, Mr. Gill abadoned the count for riot.
A number of witnesses were called for the defence,
who gave evidence to the effect that the police had made an entirely unprovoked attack on the defendants and their companions. The jury found
the defendants Guilty of assaulting two constables
but Acquitted them on the other counts. The
Chairman said they had greatly aggravated their
offence by the defence they had set up. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months'
imprisonment, and his liberation to be bound over and to find sureties to keep the peace for 12
months. Kosebrodski was sentenced to pay a fine
of 4 pounds, or to be imprisoned for one month."
From being a minor cog in a great mystery, to being a convicted felon for assaulting two constables within half a year is curious.
Naturally, since Diemschutz held center stage
so briefly in the Whitechapel Murders, his
subsequent run-in with the law was never noticed.
The Times itself failed to recall it. As the
murderer of the prostitutes was still unknown,
it was generally assumed that he or she was
still alive. Therefore the people who figured in
the case would still be of interest - one would
think - to the paper. Not so here. Perhaps
because The Times had other matters on it's mind.
The historic hearings into it's series of "Parnellism and Crime" had just climaxed in March,
when Richard Pigott was revealled to be the
author of the so-called Parnell letters that
The Times had published to destroy the statesman.
Considering that humiliation, the newspaper would
not be concerned with tracing a familiar name from
a recently unsolved murder, even if the actions
that landed that name in the news happened to be
at the site of the very event that linked that
name with the unsolved murder: for the affair
occurred outside the Socialist Club on Berners
Street which was the site of Long Liz's death.
Diemschutz was (obviously) a passionate Socialist,
and one wonders if more of his career can be
revealed in looking in the records of Socialist
organizations (and, yes, confrontations with the
police) in the following decades. Since he was
more than a one note wonder, hopefully more on
his career may turn up.
The affair needs more careful documentation. Just
who did Constable Frost identify himself to, Friedman or Diemschutz? The first and second
newspaper accounts seem contradictory, or
incomplete on the point). Possibly (indeed, very
likely) both. Further, apparently Diemschutz had
sent for the police as protection against the
crowd outside the Socialist Club (why the antagonism, by the way - was it because the
Socialists had marched on a synagogue?). If Frost
was one of the police sent for, why was the
constable in undercover dress, rather than
uniform. Had he been originally following the
procession, dressed like an onlooker?
In any event, you have the fruits of my latest
researches in front of you. The ball is in your
court, regarding any possible further information
about the incident, about Louis Diemschutz, or
on what it shows about conditions in East End,
London, in 1888/89, facing the average socialist.
Jeff |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 03:40 am | | Well found, Jeff. When collecting press material for our last batch time ran out before I could complete the trawl of The Times up to the end of April '89. The article you reproduce from April 26th is therefore particularly valuable. I have 'dragged and dropped' it into a document, applied our standard formatting and will now forward it to Stephen for inclusion in Press Reports when he finds time. We have the articles for 19th and 21st March as well as the 9th April article in the Press Reports section already.
Regards, V. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 05:06 am | | Hi Jeff
We refer in the A to Z to the conviction of Diemschutz and Kozerbrodsky (under the latter's entry), but it is particularly valuable to see the run of articles you have reproduced. The Berner Street Club was a very important establishment in the history of Jewish Radicalism and East End Socialist history, though its successor, the Jubilee Street Club, was more important in the long-term and had associations with revolutionaries and expropriators. Lenin visited the Club, would sit in the corner and sip Russian tea! Nearby, of course, in the basement of a building on Whitechapel Road, Stalin and Trotsky first set eyes on one another. The Berner Street Club was also linked with Peter the Painter and the Houndsditch and Sidney Street people. Little remains. But hugely important history. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 05:07 am | | | Sorry, I should have mentioned - check out Prof Bill Fishman's "East End Jewish Radicals" for the history of, well, East End Jewish radicalism. An excellent book. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 31 May 2001 - 06:03 pm | | Paul, is it possible that there is some file
that exists on Diemschutz or on Kozerbrodsky
with the police? If the files that exist on
the Whitechapel Murders have been so badly
scattered or lost, is it just possible that
material from them (regarding Diemschutz finding
Stride's body) might have gotten into any file
about Diemschutz. Moreover, as the basis for
the street confrontation in front of the club
was a socialist march earlier that day, and
one of the policemen was wearing civilian clothes,
it looks like the activities of Diemschutz's club
were under police observation - which suggests
a file on him would be rather large if it still
existed.
Jeff |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 02:19 am | | Hi Jeff
I don't think there is a file on Diemshutz and company, though there might be papers somewhere at the PRO. The Club would have been under surveillance by James Monro's "Secret Department", which was specifically briefed to maintain surveillance on such organisations and for which Sgt White worked (making surveillance on the Club a possible for his story - though it doesn't fit the details). The later Jubilee Club was certainly atched by the police and was closed or virtaully closed following Tottenham and the Siege of Sidney Street, it being believed that the anarchists had been supported by the Club (it was rumoured that Peter the Painter provided scenery for plays presented there). I fear that much paperwork will have gone missing and that our main hopes of finding further information will be among descendants of members and Club leaders, many of whom emigrated to the United States where much work remains to be done on any surviving archives of papers belonging to these men. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 12:54 pm | | Well there is no doubt that much needs to be
located. I will try to keep an eye out for anything else regarding Diemschutz or his club.
Also, I'll try to find Professor Fishman's book.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 02:16 pm | | Hi, Jeff:
First, let me congratulate you on the important information you have unearthed about Louis Diemschutz.
In addition to Fishman's East End Jewish Radicals, you might also try to get a copy of East End 1888 also by William J. Fishman. I recently got a paperback copy and it also covers the Berner Street club and the radical Yiddish newspaper, the Arbeter Fraint. Interestingly, Fishman states that the club "was predominantly Jewish but opened its doors to all ethnic groups." (p. 279)
Fishman discusses how the working class Jewish socialists were a threat to the Anglo-Jewish establishment. Relevant to the discussion of the disturbances at the Berner Street club in 1889 Fishman's discussion of an editorial that was published in the Arbeter Fraint year-end 1888 issue:
The editorial of 28 December ended on an ominous note. 'The workers must once and for all realise that they alone can free themselves from all burdens, that is through the social revolution that will eliminate all parasites who sucked their blood for centuries and saddled their yoke.' The next day the Berner Street Club featured a lecture by Mr Gould of Limehouse Branch SDF on 'Will Parliamentarianism help to bring about the Social Revolution?' For the Jewish Establishment the gloomy foreboding of that year might well be fulfilled in the next--the centenary of 1789! (p. 282)
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 01 June 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Dear Chris,
Thanks for the complement. I see I have to try
to get more works by Prof. Fishman on the East
End Socialists. Oddly enough, a month back I
read a book by Peter C. Gould called EARLY GREEN
POLITICS: BACK TO NATURE, BACK TO THE LAND, AND
SOCIALISM IN BRITAIN, 1880-1900. It did not
deal with the East End Socialist clubs, but was
dealing with the issue of trying to defuse some
social pressures of the cities and urban centers
by advocating more contact with the countryside
(in some cases, returning to countryside communes). This interesting book may be out of
print now. Harvester Press Ltd. published it in
England in 1988, and St. Martin's Press pulblised
it in New York City the same year.
Unfortunately, the book had no references to
Diemschutz either.
Jeff |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 07:44 am | | The article from The Times for 26th April 1889 typed by Jeff is now on the Casebook under Press Reports. It joins a series of stories from that newpaper relating to the incident for which Diemschutz and friends were arrested, namely 17th March, 19th March and 9th April. An alternative account of Diemschutz's conviction is now available in the East London Advertiser for 27th April. The Socialist march which led to the Berner Street riot in the first place is described in the Jewish Chronicle for 22nd March 1889.
Regards, V. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 12:54 pm | | | I have spoken to William Fishman over the phone, after writing via the publisher, he was more than willing to discuss both the club and it's members. ED |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 01:52 pm | | Christopher, several members of 'Der Arbieter Fraint' had been raised as Hassidic Jews. On their arrival in England, like William Wess, they turned to Anarchy. Violence was often the only order of the day!
I view that these women were killed by Anarchists based at Der Arbieter Fraint, in order to turn the local gentile population against the Whitechapel Jew. They saw the result of the earlier murder of Miriam Angel by Israel Lipski. This murder, involved a Jewish man killing a Jewish woman, yet it isolated all local Jews from the gentile population. Street fights actually broke out on the back of this murder, the word 'Lipski' became the ultimate insult from a gentile to a Whitechapel Jew.
Imagine what these Anarchists thought might happen if it was believed that Jews were murdering gentiles, even prostitutes. This would cause serious disruption; the medium for anarchist activity! This would make life very very uncomfortable for the established Anglo Jewry, people like acting Chief Rabbi Hermun Adler. A man hated by a small cell of Anarchists based at the newspaper.
Mysterious, horrible, and unsolved murders carried out properly creating riots against the Jew would make life impossible for Charles Warren!
Now we might begin to understand why the killers took the trouble to carry Stride back passed Fanny Mortimer's house to the alley of a Jewish club. Why the word Lipski was used when Swartz passed by the club. Why the Goulstone Street Grafitti outwardly states that' The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. Why the Grafitti contains the words Juwes, men hat, lamed and atbash; All associated with Hebrews. This also accounts for the reason that Mrs Long might have indicated a Jew, and Hutchison was quite sure that the man he saw with Mary Kelly was a Jew! However, I also believe that this plan was forced upon them by a man who was no more, or less, than a 'serial killer'. ED |
Author: Trish Berghoff
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 04:42 pm | | Diemschutz testified that he took note of a packet of cachous in Liz's hand and some grape stalks lying nearby. He also noticed a flower pinned to her coat.
Police concluded that Diemschutz's arrival had frightened the Ripper, who had time only to slit her throat. Diemschutz later remarked that he believed the Ripper was actually still in the yard somewhere in the darkness, because of his pony's behavior and the very warm temperature of Stride's body. Seems to me a very logical conclusion.
TRISH |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 07:09 pm | | Sorry but I don't buy your theory Ed !
If the Stride murder was the ultimate killing , maybe yes. But it wasn't , the two murders that followed were much worse. And why did Catherine Eddowes have to be murdered on the same night ?
The Goulston Grafitti is the problem here - if your anarchists did these crimes , why not simply write something like ' The whore dies in accordance to the Tora ' on the wall , rather than a coded message ?
And the murder of Kelly has no Jewish connection that is apparent. Why not write a message in Hebrew on Kelly's wall , that would have sealed it. Or leave a shochet lying around in Kelly's room.
Its all too subtle. You want to start a hate campaign , you write it in BIG letters ! |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 07:51 am | | | I believe that when Fanny Mortimer opened the door she trapped them in the yard, if Deimshults did disturb them, they must have been deaf. Unless the pony was wearing his Nike trainers, the killers would have been able to hear the pony and trap for about two mins before it arrived in the Alley. ED |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 10:55 am | | | Simon, no you write it big when trying to make it look like your setting someone up. To be effective, leave subtle hints and allow people to think they worked it all out for themselves ED> |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 01:04 pm | | Hello Ed,
Much against my better wishes I have recently taken to viewing the killings with a conspiratorial eye.
I favour the Okhrana myself, to discredit the anarchists and to possibly instigate a good old fashioned revolution.
It may be worth noting that during the year in question an Okhrana agent in Paris organised an ambush, distributed grenades to his "comrades" then promptly denounced the misguided fools to the police. The reason being to bring about closer relations between the Surete and the Okhrana - which didn't happen.
That's my theory for this week, the topic is of course subject to change.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 02:11 pm | | | Well Ed , its so subtle that no-one has worked it out yet !!! |
Author: Stepan Poberowski
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 05:11 am | | In 1885 a Okhrana agent, Wladislaw Milewski, served as case officer for all external, non-Russians agents, made a trip to London (with his chief, Petr Rachkowski) and hired two external agents there. One was a certain Murphy (from Special Branch?), a long-time acquaintance of his in Scotland Yard; the other in his reports Milewski called "John" (Littlechild?). In June 1888 Rachkowski made another trip to London to enter in negotiations with Scotland Yard authorities. Also in 1888 one of internal Okhrana agents, Gurin, also was dispatched to London on a special errand (In 1886 this Gurin has trashed (with one Landezen and other agents) a print-house of the People's Will in Geneva).
But the "ambush" mentioned by Jim Leen has taken place in May, 1890, not in 1888. This frame-up was organized by Rachkowski and put into practice by Landezen and has affected to acceleration of a conclusion of the Franco-Russian Union. Close relations between the Surete and the Okhrana have begun in 1883 and proceeded till 1902, when the French government has forbidden actions of secret foreign polices in France.
All best,
Stepan |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 10 July 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Regarding Russian Secret Police activity outside
Tsarist Russia, in 1891, General Seliverstorff
was shot and killed by "Nihilist"/Russian Revolutionaries in a Paris hotel, where the
General was staying on a mission, supposedly
incognito. The incident, combined with the suicide of the forger and perjurer Richard Pigott
in a hotel in Madrid in 1889 (by gun) were combined by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his short
story The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge, which deals
with a group of refugees from South America, who
track down (and eventually kill) an ex-dictator
in a hotel in Madrid. Wisteria Lodge was set
in 1892 (an error, as Holmes is supposed to be
dead in 1891, and does not reappear until 1894).
Jeff |
Author: Stepan Poberowski
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 05:19 am | | Lieutenant General N.D.Seliverstov was killed in Hotel de Bade in Le Boulevard des Italiens (16 November, 1890) by a Polish revolutionary, Stanislaw Padlewski, which then ran to London where some time lived at Friedrich Engels' house (122 Regent's Park Road).
When Padlewski's extortion and divergence bothered Engels to death, he sent the bothersome Pole about his business. In 1891 in Chicago Padlewski committed suicide.
By hearsay, Seliverstov has carried out secret inspection of financial and secret-service jobs of Rachkowski (the chief of Russian Foreign Secret Service of the Okhrana in Paris) and the last organized the killing to hide his malversations.
But except of some strange circumstances, there is nothing that confirms this version.
All best,
Stepan |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 11 July 2001 - 07:57 pm | | Wow Stepan, that is marvelous. How long have
you been studying the Okhrana's activities?
Jeff |
Author: Stepan Poberowski
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 06:26 am | | Hello, Jeff
I study the Okhrana Foreign Bureau's activities since 1993 when I has read Donald McCormick's The Identity of Jack the Ripper. This book is galimatias both regarding JTR and the Okhrana, but I was infatuated with absurdity of idea of a secret Russian agent-ripper.
If you will require any information on this matter, I shall help with pleasure.
All best,
Stepan |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 08:59 pm | | Thank you for the offer Stepan. If I do need
help regarding the Okhrana I certainly will contact you.
Best regards,
Jeff |
Author: Jim Leen
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hello Stepan,
The idea that the Okhrana were guilty may be implausible, but absurd?
If I could remember Sherlock Holmes' cliche I'd insert it here.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 05:59 am | | Ed,
You say that when Fanny Mortimer opened her door she trapped them in the yard.
As Fanny would not have known that a crime had been commited there,the killer could have walked out as any member of the club could have done,without any suspicion being attached.In no way did she trap anyone,unless the killer was someone she would recognise.
I am of the opinion that it was the arrival of
Deimschultz that interrupted the killer.
H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 02:49 pm | | The couple noted standing on the corner of Berner Street, by James Brown; I believe were the same couple noted by Fanny Mortimer. The man had his hand up on the wall behind the head of the woman apparently to stop her from leaving. This has mainly been deduced because she said 'not tonight some other night'
I believe he had his hand up there to hide her face, and because she was known in the area. This is also the reason that when Fanny unexpectedly opened her door, Goldstien had to make a journey from the alley around the back of the club through a small alley entrancing into Berner Street. He then walk passed Fanny's house to collect a shirt covered in blood and take it to Batty Street. Batty Street was well associated with the murderer Isreal Lipski.
This was part of the plan because the killers thought that dogs had been introduced into the enqiry, therefore, killers thought that the dogs would follow the trail of blood from the club to Batty Street.
I suggest you read the hangmans book at Colindale Newspaper Library, this gives us a full account of the Miriam Angel murder. Best wishes ED.
Lets face it they would ahve known Fanny would have been interviewed, would people she knew have left the alley covering their faces? Thus creating more suspicion! Best wishes ED. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 07:03 am | | Ed,
When somone who had commited such a crime as that perpetrated on Stride,decided to leave the site of the killing,their thoughts surely would be to get away unobserved or unrecognised.As Mortimer would not have been aware of a crime having been commited,just walking away would arouse no suspicion.However,as she would certainly learn about the deed in time,it would be neccessary,if she knew the killer,and he could not avoid being seen,to try to conceal his features,or take other measures that would best protect his identity.
In any case,I do'nt think that Mortimer could offer any help to the authorities.She claims to have neither seen nor heard anything suspicious.
H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 06:15 pm | | Harry, there was a plan surrounding the Srride murder, I believe that when Fanny unexpectedly opened the door, she threatened the outcome.
This was the reason that Goldstien had to exit the back of the club, pass Fanny's house and collect the shirt covered in blood later discovered in Batty Street, a place associated with the Miriam Angel murder by Israel Lipski. ED
Goldstien was travelling from Spectacle Alley to 22 Christian Street, has any one actually checked if he needed to travel half way along Berner street to get to number 22? |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 21 July 2001 - 06:25 am | | Ed
Certainly mrs Mortimer may have seen Goldstein pass along Berner street,but it appears this is all she saw.She could in no way influence events that happened in Dutfield's yard.
It seems most probable that the killer was with the body when Diemschutz approached,but not knowing whether he would enter or pass by,remained untill the cart had entered the yard.
It would have been easy to sidle along the wall to the yard entrance,while the cart was pulling into the yard proper.Even if noticed,Diemschutz would have no reason to immediately be suspicious.
It was too dark there to notice details.Circumstances were very much on the side of the killer.By the time a crime had been discovered,the murdeer could have been well away.
No planning Ed.Luck,quick thinking and a willingness to take chances.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 02:43 pm | | | Harry,my posts are limited on the casebook as I want to move on to something else, however, I will try to write a full description of what I view happened to Liz, I would like to see what you think. Best Wishes ED. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Hello Harry,
The passage leading to Dutfield's yard was 9 feet 2 inches wide (Morris Eagle at the inquest).
Less than 3 meters.
The body of Elisabeth Stride occupied only some inches of the passage it is true.
There so would have been plenty of room for Diemschutz to pass with the costermonger's barrow
without maybe even noticing Jack standing there somewhere because also it was very dark, it is certainly true.
But the pony was shy.
It shied to the left against the will of the driver because something was disturbing it on the right of the passage.
Of course it was the body of the victim.
If Jack had been with the body at this moment (over or near the body at the right of the passage) Diemschutz would have seen him standing there or flying away seconds later.
So we can say that Jack was not there.
If Jack had been on the left of the passage, in no way the pony would have shed in that direction leaving practically no room or very little between it and "jack against the wall".
Not on the left, not on the right, very likely not in the passage.
The darkness was in the passage, not so in the yard.
It was not shining there but it was illuminated by the light coming from the windows from the Socialist Club on the right and from the houses on the left.
The yard was quite straight.
Difficult for Diemschutz not to catch the eye on some shadows running away or the ear on some heavy tread on a muddy ground.
Very likely not in the yard.
Yet, if we assume that the work was not finished, our Jack must have been disturbed and must have fled.
In doing that he was not noticed.
Who has disturbed him if not Diemschutz ?
How could he fly away without being noticed ?
Luck ???????
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 04:45 pm | | Hello Ed,
I have only been able to get back on the boards minutes ago and I went through it understanding that you sent me on my private email the photo of Jack or at least him who should have been the leader of the gang.
I appreciate it very much and I thank you a lot because I understood that it costed you a lot of time and study.
Unfortunately I will not be able to see it for at least another couple of weeks but this does not matter because there were people that went after "him" the whole life and did not even know how "he did it".
I have no doubt that this is Jack and that you got it at last.
I have no doubt that you understood how he did it and why.
I have no doubt that if you were the first to discover all that, I have been the first to believe it.
And I am quite happy.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 06:40 am | | Graziano,
What I said was that the killer was moving to the entrance as the cart was moving into the yard.
Diemschutz became aware of an object by feeling with his whip.He had to light a match to see what the object was.
If that was so,it is quite feasible that he did not see the killer.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 24 July 2001 - 02:01 pm | | Hello Harry,
thank you to have answered.
My first point was that it was not possible for the killer to having been in the passage (standing against the wall, sitting on the ground or lying near his body's victim) while Diemschutz was there.
My second point was that he could not have fled from the passage when Diemschutz was there.
Nor from the passage into the street (Diemschutz would have seen him) neither from the passage into the yard (Diemschutz would have seen or heard him).
If the killer (for the simplicity I speak about him as he was a unique person but I do not believe it) was not in the passage and if he did not flee when Diemschutz came but before and if we assume that he had not finished his work at that time, it means that he has been disturbed by someone else.
Since he fled without being noticed this means that he new the site very well or that he was very well known at the site.
Why am I convinced that the killer was not there when Diemschutz came into the passage ?
Diemschutz at the inquest: "I drove into the yard, both gates being quite open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right...
(how Diemschutz could know at that moment there was an object on the right ? Two possibilities: a. he sees it (if something else was on the left -the killer for example- he would thus also have seen it), b. the pony moves to the left (we can so safely assume that nothing disturbed it from that side of the passage and thus that nothing was there))
...I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what...
(at this stage we know for the reasons stated above -remember that the passage is less than three meters wide- that the killer is not on the left of the passage but of course he could still be near the body)
...It was a dark object.
I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match...
(Diemschutz tells there that he takes his time, he stops in the passage, before getting in the yard and then he does not notice any sound or does not detect any movement that should have been done by a living person near the body and so very near at this point to him -at least breathing-)
....I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there and by the dress that it was the one of a woman.
Impossible that the killer was in the passage when he arrived.
Should the killer have escaped into the yard from the passage in this very moment Diemschutz undoubtedly for the reasons posted in the previous message could have seen or heard him.
Bye. Graziano.
p.s.: sorry for the english but I must be quick. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 07:22 am | | Graziano,
Why should Diemschutz have seen the killer.Why did it have to be the body and not the killer that caused the horse to shie.Diemschutz surely would first act to control the horse.He says it was dark and he had to strike a match.He then went to get help.The killer could have slipped out while help was being sought.
It is only surmise that the killer was there,as it is surmise that he had left.One of us is correct,but who?.That one could be wrong is no reason why an idea should not be aired.A woman was killed,a killer was there,that much is certain.We can be certain of little else.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 25 July 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Hello Harry,
Agreed.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 11:37 pm | | I was curious to see if the Manchester Guardian
of March 1889 had any references to the incident
of the riot outside the socialist club in the
East End. It was a different world, with the
news of one city not necessarily being of interest
in another. The slaughter of the East End
prostitutes by the Ripper became a world wide
story. The incident outside Diemschutz's club
did not seem to have the same news coverage,
although (as we will see) it did get some notice
in Manchester.
On Monday, 25 March 1889, the Manchester Guardian
published a long pair of items on page 8, regarding the visit of the Rev. Dr. Herman Adler,
Delegate Chief Rabbi of England. Adler was in
Manchester to help dedicate a new Jewish cemetary
and visit several other sites. However, one of
the four articles referred to the incident that
involved Diemschutz.
Manchester Guardian, P. 8, col. 6:
"JEWISH WORKING MEN AND SOCIALISM."
"Dr. H. Adler on Saturday evening presided at a lecture on "Marriage customs, ancient and
modern," delivered by the Rev. Dr. Salomon, in
connection with the Jewish Working Men's Club, in
the Jews' School, Derby-street, Cheetham. -- The
CHAIRMAN, who was received very warmly by a large
audience, and it afforded into sincere gratification to be present at a meeting of the
Manchester Jewish Working Men's Club, for he assured them that he took the very deepest interest in the welfare of the industrial classes
in this city -- (Hear, hear.) They had heard a
good deal during last week concerning the Jewish
working man of London, and he hoped he would have
their forbearance while he said a few words about
what they had read in the local papers, and especially in the Jewish press, with regard to certain scenes which unfortunately took place in
the East End of London with which the Jewish working men of the capital had been associated.
He begged to tell them in the most emphatic language possible that the Jewish working men of London were not in the slightest degree to be held
responsible for the unfortunate scenes that did take place == (Applause.) These were owing to
a few noisy agitators who wanted to propagate
their pestilential opinions among some of the Jewish workingmen. The men who were responsible
for that foolish parade, as it had been called, could not be termed Jews. He would ask the general press to consider whether noisy, blatant
Atheiests, such as unfortunately there would be in any community -- men who held revolutionary
and anarchist opinions -- would be called by them
Christians? As little right was there to associate a few such men who might be Jewish by
birth with the Jewish congregation. -- (Hear, hear.) There would always be a few black sheep
into whatever community they might look. There were even black sheep in the House of Lords by
the admission of the honourable Lords themselves.
-- (Laughter.) Then how could it be expecte that
the general body of Jewish working men would be void of such? This he earnestly hoped, however --
that the Jewish working men here would hold aloof
from those who termed themselves Socialists, but
who under the guise of that name held opinions
subversive to religion, subversive of government,
subversive of the family and of all that they were
told by their holy faith they were to hold dear
and to respect. -- (Applause.) The subject of the lecture that night was one which he was sure
would commend itself strongly to working men. They had to lead anxious, toil=worn lives. He
spoke with a fulness of heart on this subject
because he was a Jewish working man himself, and
could say that the sole reward that he found on
earth for his hard work == the sole rest that he
discovered -- was that which was to be found in
the bosom of his family --in that happiness which
wedded life alone afforded, for it had ever been found that a home of love doth make a love of home.== (Applause.) Dr. Salomon then delivered
his lecture."
It should not be surprising that Adler's remarks
were hostile to the activities of Diemschutz's
club. The reputation of Socialism towards organized religion was not favorable, and Adler
(by his very position) was a ranking member in
the social order. Also, the image of foreign
Jews as social troublemakers had to be played
down. But given that in other labor agitations
of the period (such as the Dock Strike of the
following year) Cardinal Manning took an active
role supporting the strikers, Adler's point of
view needed some modernizing (to say the least).
In any event, the riot had gotten notice outside
of London, and Adler took advantage of his public
appearances to give his view on the matter.
Jeff |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 09:20 am | | | As far as I can tell , I can't see that the case has been solved on this board ! |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 02:15 pm | | I wish to add one more Times item on Diemschutz and his own punishment. In the Times of London
of Thursday, May 2, 1889, this very small item
appeared on page 9, col. f:
"THE CASE OF DIEMSHIETZ (sic). -- The Home
Secretary stated to Mr. W. H. Parker, chairman of
a meeting held to demand the release of the man
Diemshietz (sic) convicted of assault in connection with the Berner-street disturbance,
that it is contrary to practice of the department
to receive deputations in criminal cases, but that
any representation in writing on Diemshietz's (sic) behalf shall receive his careful consideration."
It is the first time that I have heard of W.H.
Parker, and if anyone has any inkling of who
he was (aside from a man supporting Eastern
Ender who are socialists) it would be nice to know.
Earlier in the month of March 1889 (March 6, 1889;
page 7 col. e) the Times printed an extensive
debate in which the liberal M.P. and barrister,
Sir Charles Russell (soon to defend Florence
Maybrick) argued about the right of people to
hold public demonstrations at Trafalgar Square.
The government's point of view was upheld by
the Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Matthews. Russell
pointed out the long standing right of this,
while Matthews pointed out the police had a right
to control unruly crowds, as appeared at the
Trafalgar Square riots in Nov. 1887. Matthews
pointed out to four major parks (one was Hyde
Park) which were large enough for the same
purposes and that could have been used.
After the Berner Street disturbance, there was
apparently no Parliamentary discussion of what
happened, probably because the lawbreakers were
East Enders (and Jewish ones) and SOCIALISTS,
while the Trafalgar Square riots involved MPs
like Cunningham Graham. The result was that
no discussion on what incident is recorded
(at least in the Times coverage).
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
