I agree....this is why I am wondering if the Aarensons who lived at 22 Ellen street in 1890 till at least 1901 could be his family. Samuel (the dad) came from a town in Galicia that he called Schwoskin that I think was under Austro-Hungarian rule and had Hungarians living there.
Hopefully the birth cert address of Alexander will help.
Alexander Aaronsons school record is on Ancestry 1890 entry to Berner Street school. The girls are not on there....
Yes sorry, you are right, it's Samuel who's the Ellen St guy.
It's very complicated.
We have Adolph Aarons and Samuel Aaronson. And we have 'Alexander Aarnson' (Aaronson) born Q4 1886 St G in E, and Alexander Aarons born Q4 87 Whitechapel.
In 1891 Adolph is at 54 Hanbury St and he has a son Alexander who is 3. Meanwhile Samuel is at 22 Ellen St with a son Alec who's 5.
In 1901, Adolph is still at same address with a son Alec who's 13. Samuel is still at same address with a son Alexander who's 14.
I love the way the Alecs and Alexanders change forenames with each other.
In 1911 Adolph has signed his Queen St census form but his name on the list is crossed out (I think he was in hospital). Freda is there with Alec aged 22. Meanwhile Samuel seems to have vanished but his son Alec is with his wife at 34 Kabella (?) St, Bethnal Green.
How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].
Interesting question. I suspect the phrase conjures up different things to different people. This is my take, for what it's worth:
To me it suggests he had the appearance of an actor - OTT gestures. Slightly artificially flamboyance. Looking a little out of place in the area. Like a younger version of Len Goodman perhaps? I think an encounter with someone like Julian Clary (or perhaps even the late David Bowie) would leave me with the impression that I had met someone in "the theatrical line".
It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.
On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?
Last edited by Bridewell : 05-30-2017 at 03:25 PM.
It's not that an uncorroborated statement is safely dismissed as not having taken place at all,the statement could in fact be true,depending on the witness could in fact be taken as more true than not beforehand.But in order to have some finality the person and the statement must be checked.What, for example, if the witness and the accused had some differences before? That's why there's is cross-examination,otherwise innocent people could be hanged,lives are at stake.There are liars out there you know.
Yes I agree with you Varqm.
However I always thought that pipeman might have been a policeman working undercover. They must have watched such places. Have you any thoughts on who Israel was?
Its strange that witnesses are sometimes hard to find. I wonder if they did alter their names? I am sure I would be worried that Jack might come looking for me if I was a witness...