Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at Leon Goldstein

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Well, Anderson was of the belief that Schwartz himself was more likely the intended target. Schwartz originally thought it was shouted at Pipeman. Who was more likely boils down to an assessment of whether or not Schwartz's initial impression was incorrect, compared with Anderson's alternative suggestion based upon his interview with Schwartz and his knowledge of the times (and how Lipski was used as an insult towards Jews).

    I believe it is more common for people today to side with Anderson, and to view Schwartz as probably mistaken in his interpretation of whom Lipski was shouted at. This is based in part upon the surviving police reports where it is stated that when questioned Schwartz was, in the end, unsure whom it was shouted at. This implies that when Anderson, during questioning, provided the alternative to Schwartz and it was then that Schwartz realised he himself may have been the intended target of the shout. (oh dear, was it Anderson or Abberline? I keep getting them mixed up here).

    Anyway, given Schwartz appears to have accepted the possibility that he may have been the intended target, the probabilities lean towards that being the case in my view. And if that's the case, then Pipeman no longer appears to have been connected to B.S., and probably didn't chase Schwartz though he may have left the area in the same direction (leading to Schwartz's belief he was being chased).

    Again, this many years after the events we can never know if that was the case, but from the snippets we have, that appears to be the most likely situation. But of course, it is not the only one.

    - Jeff

    Scotland Yard gave great credence to the name Lipski being shouted and felt if it was directed at Pipeman then this was a game changing lead. They were sorely disappointed when Abberline who had the local knowledge informed them that Lipski was in fact a racial slur used by locals to insult Jews or those with the appearance of being Jewish(by this I always think they mean Eastern European). But yeah it is fairly obvious that Abberline was fairly sure Lipski was directed at Schwartz. The two major clues I think we have is that the Ripper used a racist Jewish slur meaning he was not foreign and the apron dropped in Goulston Street showing him fleeing back into Whitechapel.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paddy View Post

      Was Goldstein ever considered to be a witness? In 1891 he was in the census staying in a sea front house in the Isle of Sheppey ?
      Not to my knowledge.

      A simple question that everyone should have thought about, is; was Goldstein on the scene before or after the murder?

      If before, there is precious little time for the murderer and victim to arrive.

      If after, then Diemschitz did not interrupt the Ripper had it been him, and either way he did not see anyone leave the scene.

      If after, then the broad-shouldered man is the odds-on favourite to be the murderer.

      The murderer seems to have been skilled at killing with a knife, just like Jack.

      Does it all make sense?
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
        A simple question that everyone should have thought about, is; was Goldstein on the scene before or after the murder?

        If before, there is precious little time for the murderer and victim to arrive.
        Hi Andrew,

        Suppose the Schwartz incident is over and Stride walks into the yard alone and is murdered by Goldstein. He then walks north up Berner St and is heard by Mortimer (the footsteps) at about 12:45, goes to the Spectacle Cafe and retrieves his cigarette boxes and is seen by Mortimer headed south at about 1:00. Fifteen minutes is plenty of time for the return trip and an "establishment of presence" at the Spectacle. All pure speculation, of course.

        Cheers, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

        Comment

        Working...
        X