Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 8 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (14 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (6 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-30-2017, 10:57 AM
Paddy Paddy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 699
Default

Hi Bridewell
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.

Robert,
Alexander Aaronsons school record is on Ancestry 1890 entry to Berner Street school. The girls are not on there....

Pat.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-30-2017, 11:16 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,667
Default

Hi Pat

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.

Both Alecs/Alexanders are in the 39 register.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-30-2017, 11:28 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,218
Default

Hi All,

Israel Schwartz.

How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-30-2017, 11:34 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,667
Default

Flamboyantly, I suppose, but I don't think we're talking Quentin Crisp here.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:12 PM
Paddy Paddy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 699
Default

Quote:
How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].
Maybe it was just a cultural difference Simon, someone maybe who had over exaggerated speech and mannerisms (not common to the british).

Or could they have meant somebody who appeared gay? Or the clothing?
Hard to say.
What were London theatrical men like back then I wonder?

Pat.......
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-30-2017, 03:10 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi All,

Israel Schwartz.

How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

Regards,

Simon
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".
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-30-2017, 03:20 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,619
Default

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?
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.

Last edited by Bridewell : 05-30-2017 at 03:25 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-30-2017, 06:10 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 357
Default

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.

Last edited by Varqm : 05-30-2017 at 06:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-30-2017, 06:47 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 357
Default

Israel Schwartz and Pipeman were more likely just passersby who did not want to get involved in the couple.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-31-2017, 03:48 PM
Paddy Paddy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 699
Default

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...

Pat......
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.