Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at Leon Goldstein

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    So what alternatives are available?

    1. Despite the best efforts of poster Jose, the Spectacle Cafe did exist.
    2. Goldstein was lying.

    Since the marginal note on Leon's report indicated that the police were not without their suspicions about his story, I would imagine that they would have investigated by at least checking his alibi at the Spectacle Cafe. Had they found that the Cafe did not exist I dare say he would have been subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.

    Cheers, George
    The 1895 Post Office Directory show a Chandler shop at 3 Spectacle Alley owned by Jacob Posner.
    The same address in 1882 was a dealer in china, there is no surviving PO Direc. for 1888.

    Chandlers did serve food and drink, if it was there in 1888.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Andrew,

      My understanding is that Schwartz was headed south down Berner St towards his new home in Ellen St, so, yes, he was intending to go there (Ellen St) anyway. Sequence was, walking down western side of Berner towards Ellen St, cross to eastern side of Berner to avoid domestic argument, reach intersection at Fairclough and just as stepping off northern kerb of Fairclough sees an movement of Pipeman towards him. Run like hell down Berner, past his home in Ellen (doesn't want pursuer to know where he lives) to the arches in Pinchin St.

      Cheers, George
      Hi George.

      The route taken by Schwartz has been debated for years, one key detail is the question, where was Pipeman?
      Which route Schwartz took must depend on where Pipeman was as a scared man is not likely to run towards or directly past the threat, but Schwartz did have three options once he reached the Board School at Fairclough.

      As you know the press version reads:
      "...a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder."

      There was a beer house at 46 Berner St. on the corner on the same side as the club, it was closed at this time.
      So did Schwartz cross Berner St. from Dutfields Yard, diagonally away from the assault?
      If a man is running towards him as he is crossing towards the Board School, isn't the natural direction to go eastward along Fairclough?
      I have no opinion on this, just in case you're wondering.

      Then there's Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement.
      "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.........finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far"

      The police version does not say where Pipeman was standing, and the reference to "as far as the railway arch", may possibly just a local way of saying he ran south due to the fact that everywhere south of Berner St. is crossed by railway arches.

      At the end of Berner St., after crossing Fairclough, the next street is Ellen St., but it's a 'T', he can either run east or west on Ellen, but not south.

      Some have criticized the press version because the man is said to be carrying a knife, yet in the police version it is a pipe. So, is someone adding a bit of drama to this story, or is this due to translation issues?

      There is a structure on the corner of the Board School that is never mentioned, we have no details of what it was, but if the man was standing lighting his pipe at that spot, then maybe Schwartz only noticed him as he was crossing the road, which means his his natural direction of flight should be west along Fairclough, away from him.

      There are alternatives depending where Pipeman was located.

      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Andrew,

        My understanding is that Schwartz was headed south down Berner St towards his new home in Ellen St, so, yes, he was intending to go there (Ellen St) anyway. Sequence was, walking down western side of Berner towards Ellen St, cross to eastern side of Berner to avoid domestic argument, reach intersection at Fairclough and just as stepping off northern kerb of Fairclough sees an movement of Pipeman towards him. Run like hell down Berner, past his home in Ellen (doesn't want pursuer to know where he lives) to the arches in Pinchin St.

        Cheers, George
        George,
        if no such incident had confronted Schwartz while heading south on Berner toward Ellen, we could expect him to continue going down Berner, on the western side. No need to cross the street, unless he is actually intending to go east on Fairclough. In the Echo report, the chase proceeds east on Fairclough. Nothing in the story causes Schwartz to cross - he was already at the gateway, so it's too late to avoid anything, and Pipeman does not begin to move in his direction until Schwartz crosses. Therefore, we can conclude that Schwartz's intention to head south-east from the point of the gateway, is not altered by anything he encounters.
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          At the end of Berner St., after crossing Fairclough, the next street is Ellen St., but it's a 'T', he can either run east or west on Ellen, but not south.
          Does 22 Ellen St represent the old or new lodgings?

          The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

          Supposing that his wife had completed the task of moving address, in his absence, then the Ellen St address would be the new lodgings. Otherwise, the expected move did not occur. Would an Ellen St address mean that he would normally walk down Berner St to get to it, anyway, and not just to check on the Berner St address?

          An important question seems to be; did the Star actually mean Backchurch Lane, or did they mean Ellen St, Backchurch Lane? If the former, Schwartz conceivably gave the police a false address. Regardless, the Star man was still able to run him to earth. Somehow, he found a man without knowing his name or address.
          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Hi George.

            The route taken by Schwartz has been debated for years, one key detail is the question, where was Pipeman?
            Which route Schwartz took must depend on where Pipeman was as a scared man is not likely to run towards or directly past the threat, but Schwartz did have three options once he reached the Board School at Fairclough.

            As you know the press version reads:
            "...a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder."

            There was a beer house at 46 Berner St. on the corner on the same side as the club, it was closed at this time.
            So did Schwartz cross Berner St. from Dutfields Yard, diagonally away from the assault?
            If a man is running towards him as he is crossing towards the Board School, isn't the natural direction to go eastward along Fairclough?
            I have no opinion on this, just in case you're wondering.

            Then there's Swanson's summary of Schwartz's statement.
            "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.........finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far"

            The police version does not say where Pipeman was standing, and the reference to "as far as the railway arch", may possibly just a local way of saying he ran south due to the fact that everywhere south of Berner St. is crossed by railway arches.

            At the end of Berner St., after crossing Fairclough, the next street is Ellen St., but it's a 'T', he can either run east or west on Ellen, but not south.

            Some have criticized the press version because the man is said to be carrying a knife, yet in the police version it is a pipe. So, is someone adding a bit of drama to this story, or is this due to translation issues?

            There is a structure on the corner of the Board School that is never mentioned, we have no details of what it was, but if the man was standing lighting his pipe at that spot, then maybe Schwartz only noticed him as he was crossing the road, which means his his natural direction of flight should be west along Fairclough, away from him.

            There are alternatives depending where Pipeman was located.
            Hi Jon,

            This topic is a real can of worms and puzzled me for some time. As you say, why would someone run towards a perceived threat?

            Schwartz says he followed BSM down Berner St, so they are on the western side. Thinking to avoid a perceived domestic, Schwartz crosses to the eastern side, I think diagonally from maybe 5 yards north of the "domestic". He is then only about 6 or 7 paces from the corner at Fairclough. He hears screams and turns to see what he thinks is a woman being thrown to the ground, but could have been her pulling away from the man's grip and overbalancing. Then sees a man emerge from the doorway on the opposite side, the "opposite" referring to Schwartz's location at that time, not on the opposite side to the club. This is the location of the Nelson, a beerhouse on the NW corner of the intersection, which would have been closed, so Pipeman is sheltering in the doorway to light his pipe, as pipesters are wont to do. Schwartz notices Pipeman emerge from the doorway as he is stepping off the kerb headed south At this stage BSM shouts "Lipski" in their direction, or Pipeman shouts at BSM, or both, depending on which version of the story you are reading.

            If we overlook the possibility that Pipeman and BSM are a team, then from Pipeman's point of view he emerges from the doorway having heard screams and sees a woman on the ground with a man standing near her shouting at a man who appears to be escaping the situation, and assumes that Schwartz is the culprit. He makes a move towards Schwartz, who by this time is maybe halfway across Fairclough. Which way does Schwartz run?

            I would suspect he would keep going south down Berner and turn right into Ellen. I believe I've seen his new address expressed as Ellen St, Backchurch lane and that was a way of expressing that the residence was in Ellen St near to the Backchurch Lane intersection. He might then have turned left into Phillip St or Splindt's St towards the arches, having realised that it would be prudent to avoid revealing the location of his home to his pursuer. The other possibility is that he ran down Fairclough with Pipeman in pursuit to become the subject of the story in the Echo that would have assumed Pipeman pursuing a murder suspect.

            Looking at the press version that you quoted "...a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder." and bearing in mind that Schwartz had little English, could he be expected to discern the difference between a warning shouted "to" the man, implying a partnership, from a warning shouted "at" the man, followed by a movement towards Schwartz to ask what happened, which Schwartz interpreted as an attack.

            I have seen a suggestion that the structure of the Board School corner may have been a bus shelter, but in my opinion Pipeman emerged from the recessed doorway of the Nelson. As always, it is only my opinion at this time, and is subject to change at any time should persuasive argument or evidence to the contrary be presented.

            Cheers, George
            It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

            All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              George,
              if no such incident had confronted Schwartz while heading south on Berner toward Ellen, we could expect him to continue going down Berner, on the western side. No need to cross the street, unless he is actually intending to go east on Fairclough. In the Echo report, the chase proceeds east on Fairclough. Nothing in the story causes Schwartz to cross - he was already at the gateway, so it's too late to avoid anything, and Pipeman does not begin to move in his direction until Schwartz crosses. Therefore, we can conclude that Schwartz's intention to head south-east from the point of the gateway, is not altered by anything he encounters.
              Hi Andrew,

              I don't think Schwartz had reached the gateway when the "domestic" commenced, and he crossed Berner to avoid getting involved in the dispute. But Pipeman doesn't make his move when Schwartz is crossing Berner, he makes it when Schwartz is crossing Fairclough. The whole incident, from his stepping off the western kerb of Berner to stepping off the Northern kerb of Fairclough probably took only 30 seconds to a minute.

              Schwartz's new address was Ellen St, the Backchurch part being indicative that the house was nearest to that intersection. I have read that if Schwartz was a practising member of the Jewish faith that he would not have moved furniture on the Sabbath, but expected that the move would take place in his absence. Perhaps someone who is schooled in the traditions of the Jewish faith could advise if such rules also applied to the female members of that persuasion? Berner St would be one way to access Ellen St, depending on from where he started.

              Cheers, George
              It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                When Schwartz said he ran to the railway arch, he had a specific arch in mind. It was the one near Goldstein's place. Schwartz was effectively saying he ran to 22 Christian street. What complicates the matter a little, is this ...

                Isn’t this just an assumption? What are you basing this suggestion on?

                On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.

                Why cross the road? Was he intending to go there anyway?
                To avoid the incident.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Andrew,

                  I don't think Schwartz had reached the gateway when the "domestic" commenced, and he crossed Berner to avoid getting involved in the dispute. But Pipeman doesn't make his move when Schwartz is crossing Berner, he makes it when Schwartz is crossing Fairclough. The whole incident, from his stepping off the western kerb of Berner to stepping off the Northern kerb of Fairclough probably took only 30 seconds to a minute.
                  Let's accept that the press report is closer to the truth, as you seem to. So, what's going on here?...

                  The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

                  Aside from it seeming rather pointless for Schwartz to cross the street, now that the man and woman are in the passageway quarrelling, it also seems that the man clearly doesn't object to Stride being anywhere near the yard. On the contrary, he pushes her back into it. It's as if he were saying ...

                  Get back in there bitch, where do you think you're going!

                  Except she was supposedly standing in the gateway. Perhaps Eagle found her outside, slacking off?
                  Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 09-08-2023, 10:06 AM.
                  Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Let's accept that the press report is closer to the truth, as you seem to. So, what's going on here?...

                    The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

                    Aside from it seeming rather pointless for Schwartz to cross the street, now that the man and woman are in the passageway quarrelling, it also seems that the man clearly doesn't object to Stride being anywhere near the yard. On the contrary, he pushes her back into it. It's as if he were saying ...

                    Get back in there bitch, where do you think you're going!

                    Except she was supposedly standing in the gateway. Perhaps Eagle found her outside, slacking off?
                    Hi Andrew,

                    Once again we are dealing with a dichotomy. Your quote is from the Star report. The original report indicated he was trying to pull Stride out of the yard. I believe that we have to accept that we are dealing with a great deal of "lost in translation".

                    Cheers, George
                    It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Andrew,

                      Once again we are dealing with a dichotomy. Your quote is from the Star report. The original report indicated he was trying to pull Stride out of the yard. I believe that we have to accept that we are dealing with a great deal of "lost in translation".

                      Cheers, George
                      George,
                      the police report suggests that Schwartz was level with the gates when the man stops to talk to the woman. It seems this point must be ignored, to keep the story believable. Picking and choosing the 'best' bits from each account, also seems to be both common and acceptable. Why not pick the 'worst' bits of each account? That would be arbitrary, but no more so.

                      I tried a few pages back to argue that the distinction between 'passageway' and 'footway' might have been lost in translation. Having the woman thrown down where she is subsequently found, with Schwartz in close proximity, seemed like a good way of dealing with the following problems:
                      • Why no one heard any screams
                      • Why Stride ends up inside the gates and not on the footway
                      • Those Damned Cachous
                      No interest in lost in translation explanations on that occasion. You might have better luck.
                      Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        Does 22 Ellen St represent the old or new lodgings?

                        The Star: It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

                        Supposing that his wife had completed the task of moving address, in his absence, then the Ellen St address would be the new lodgings. Otherwise, the expected move did not occur. Would an Ellen St address mean that he would normally walk down Berner St to get to it, anyway, and not just to check on the Berner St address?

                        An important question seems to be; did the Star actually mean Backchurch Lane, or did they mean Ellen St, Backchurch Lane? If the former, Schwartz conceivably gave the police a false address. Regardless, the Star man was still able to run him to earth. Somehow, he found a man without knowing his name or address.
                        You're right, it always has been thee most important question for those interested in his route of flight.
                        If we're honest it could be either, an Ellen St. address could be written as "Ellen-street, Backchurch-lane", as Backchurch lane is a larger street than Berner St.
                        I doubt he gave a false address, you don't offer yourself as a witness just to lie about where you live. The interpreter will also need to give his address, he is as much responsible for what is stated as the witness, and both will have to sign the statement.

                        The other important question, for those wary about press versions, is what did "opposite" mean in Swanson's summary?
                        Did Schwartz step out to cross the road, and saw Pipeman standing opposite - meaning by the Board School?
                        Or had Schwartz reached the Board School and then noticed Pipeman standing opposite, that is back on the club side if the street?
                        Swanson only says "on crossing", but did he mean as he began crossing, or as he finished crossing?
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Yes, I think your interpretation of the sequence is the more common, I still see it as an open question though.
                          You just lightly touched on the Secretary's story, that some believe is Schwartz.

                          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          ... The other possibility is that he ran down Fairclough with Pipeman in pursuit to become the subject of the story in the Echo that would have assumed Pipeman pursuing a murder suspect.
                          Wess could have been the translator for Goldstein, if they knew each other.
                          I would guess at the time neighborhoods were more closely knit, we often read everybody knew everybody else. Jews, especially the more prominent ones of their community may well know more people than the ordinary person, whether they are members of their club or not.
                          So, if Wess knew Schwartz then it may only be natural for him to act as interpreter for a fellow Jew.

                          The problem with this idea is Wess knows that Schwartz was a witness to an assault.
                          So we have to ask ourselves why would he tell an Echo journalist that the man being pursued was thought to be the killer, when the man being pursued was Schwartz, and he knew it?

                          Which means, either Wess was not Schwartz interpreter, or the pursuit was not Schwartz & Pipeman.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            ... I have read that if Schwartz was a practising member of the Jewish faith that he would not have moved furniture on the Sabbath, but expected that the move would take place in his absence. Perhaps someone who is schooled in the traditions of the Jewish faith could advise if such rules also applied to the female members of that persuasion?
                            The Jewish Sabbath runs from Friday Midnight to Saturday Midnight, I'm not sure how that affects the scenario.

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              George,
                              the police report suggests that Schwartz was level with the gates when the man stops to talk to the woman.
                              Does it? Where?
                              It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                              All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Let's accept that the press report is closer to the truth, as you seem to. So, what's going on here?...

                                The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

                                Aside from it seeming rather pointless for Schwartz to cross the street, now that the man and woman are in the passageway quarrelling, it also seems that the man clearly doesn't object to Stride being anywhere near the yard. On the contrary, he pushes her back into it. It's as if he were saying ...

                                Get back in there bitch, where do you think you're going!

                                Except she was supposedly standing in the gateway. Perhaps Eagle found her outside, slacking off?
                                Ok, for those who prefer the press version:
                                1 - who is responsible for replacing a pipe with a knife?
                                2 - why is a man suggested as coming "out of a doorway" that was already closed? - there is no shelter
                                3 - why does the half-tipsy man push the woman into the yard (consistent with the body being found in the yard implying this was her killer), while in the police version he pulls her out of the yard (suggesting this was only an assault, not the final act of her killing, leaving room for some missing activity).
                                4 - The man who stepped forward to 'chase' Schwartz is presented as a threat by the press, but is presented as possibly an understandable mistake in the police version.

                                All points taken together make it seem like the story in the press was hyped up to appear more dramatic, likely to sell papers?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X