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

    Hi Andrew,

    I find myself at a loss to understand how it could be deduced that a man standing in the Berner St entrance to the Hampshire Ct passage came from the Red Lion. He could have come from the Lord Nelson, or from anywhere, to stand in that passage with his pipe.
    Hi George.

    I never said anything about the man coming from the Red Lion, and the pub itself is irrelevant. My contention is that "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off" can be thought of as:

    * The doorway: a mistranslation of the entry/exit to/from Hampshire Court.

    * The public-house a few doors off: a location relative to Schwartz after he crosses the road until he steps off the curb.

    The man could not have come out of the doorway of the Nelson - that place was closed - whereas the court was 'open'. People have always assumed "a few doors off" to be relative to the assault location, and then wondered why Swanson's "opposite side of the street" seemed to contradict the press report. Is does not, if "a few doors off" is assumed to be relative to Schwartz, and "opposite side of the street" is assumed to be relative to the where the first man calls out 'Lipski'.

    This situation now has Schwartz and the second man well apart, and so who is shouting at who would be fairly obvious. A model that aligns the police and press report and does not require the second man to walk out of a closed door is probably on the right track.

    The other reservation that I have regarding this location is that I agree with Jon when he said that Schwartz would have crossed Berner diagonally and been only metres from the kerb in Fairclough. If he turned at that point his attention would have been towards the couple in the gateway rather than a man standing in the darkness at Hampshire Ct entrance. I think he would have noticed a man in this position only if it was Pipeman who shouted a warning, as in the press report, rather than BSMan shouting Lipski, as in the police report.
    I don't think there's much off a problem at all.

    On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe ... while looking left. Perhaps the lighting caught his eye.

    Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ... by looking to his right after crossing over.

    It is also my contention that the second of these quotes is equivalent to Mortimer's "He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the board school."

    My opinion, at this stage, is that the dwelling that Schwartz was moving from was on the western side of Berner St, and possibly one of the cottages in Dutfield's Yard. In the latter case he would have decided to instead check the address that he was moving to rather than get involved in a domestic. JMO.

    Cheers, George

    Hi George.
    The western side? So why did Schwartz cross the street, and not just keep walking south? In the police report he is already at the gates when he crosses the street, and in the press report his location is ambiguous. We have no reason to suppose that Schwartz crossed the street, other than to surmise that his existing intention was to head south-east of the club. The Echo/Scotsman report supports this view. This is the only seemingly independent report we have that possibly supports Schwartz's story. Why ignore it?
    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      Hi George.

      I never said anything about the man coming from the Red Lion, and the pub itself is irrelevant. My contention is that "the doorway of the public-house a few doors off"
      Apologies. I must have misunderstood "By moving the location of the public-house, I believe the police and press reports become aligned with respect to the initial location of the second man."

      The man could not have come out of the doorway of the Nelson - that place was closed
      Door and Doorway are not the same thing.

      On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe ... while looking left. Perhaps the lighting caught his eye.
      The lighting of the pipe would have been behind him.

      Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter ... by looking to his right after crossing over.
      The lighting of the pipe would still have been behind him.

      The western side? So why did Schwartz cross the street, and not just keep walking south? In the police report he is already at the gates when he crosses the street, and in the press report his location is ambiguous. We have no reason to suppose that Schwartz crossed the street, other than to surmise that his existing intention was to head south-east of the club.
      According to Schwartz, he crossed the road to avoid becoming involved in a perceived domestic.

      The Echo/Scotsman report supports this view. This is the only seemingly independent report we have that possibly supports Schwartz's story. Why ignore it?
      Hi Andrew,

      Can you refresh my memory on the Echo/Scotsman report please?

      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

        Apologies. I must have misunderstood "By moving the location of the public-house, I believe the police and press reports become aligned with respect to the initial location of the second man."
        ​The Red Lion theory starts here.

        The lighting of the pipe would have been behind him.
        Given what assumptions?​

        According to Schwartz, he crossed the road to avoid becoming involved in a perceived domestic.​
        In the press report. The simplest and best way to avoid getting involved would have been to keep walking south. Schwartz doesn't do that, presumably for a reason.

        Hi Andrew,

        Can you refresh my memory on the Echo/Scotsman report please?

        Cheers, George
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Ok, for those who prefer the press version:
          1 - who is responsible for replacing a pipe with a knife?
          I shouted out
          Who killed the Kennedy's
          When after all
          It was you and me


          So let me please introduce my latest theory: Pipeman was also Knifeman.​
          We can see what might have happened by blending the police and press accounts.

          On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe.
          [The second man began] shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman
          & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man​, [who]
          rushed forward as if to attack the intruder​ [with] a knife in [his] hand, he fled incontinently to his new lodgings,
          but the man did not follow so far.


          2 - why is a man suggested as coming "out of a doorway" that was already closed? - there is no shelter
          Because it was not the Nelson that the man emerged from.

          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).
          The man tried to pull the woman into the street​ ...

          If he failed to pull her out of the yard, how could he have thrown her onto the footway?

          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.
          That is Abberline trying to make sense of the story, as he did with the call of 'Lipski'.

          All points taken together make it seem like the story in the press was hyped up to appear more dramatic, likely to sell papers?
          ​... the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

          The Star might have thought the lighting of the pipe an unimportant detail, and perhaps Schwartz was reluctant to tell the police about the knife. He might have worried that mentioning the knife would make the story sound too dramatic. As it was, the police thought his appearance was theatrical.
          Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 09-28-2023, 11:55 AM.
          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

            All things considered, I would suggest the Schwartz event didn't happen.

            But, let's say it did, it was very dark where Liz's body lay and so it could just as easily have been a casual street assault and they had no idea a body was lying nearby.

            There is a difference between two people being in a very dark spot, and that is not by accident, and a street assault on show for any passerby to witness.

            I reckon the best fit is that poor Liz was dead before a quarter to one. Not long, mind you, but still before that time.
            I had missed this post Fleetwood, but I feel less alone now after reading it. Although I do think its possible...within the realm of it anyway....that Israel was there at that time, but he was actually leaving the club and he saw the physical assault on the very spot where Liz is found as he left via the gates.

            A few things about his story make it hard to accept as a whole, but maybe some parts were at least in part truthful. The premise for his being there at 12:45 is one of those really questionable elements..because after he left his wife she would have had very few things to move. Likely no furniture, not likely any large trunks or heavy large items, probably just some clothing and a few keepsakes. He left her around noon.......and he returns almost 13 hours later suggesting that he was checking to see if she had finished? Assuming she did focus on the move after he left, there would be no chance at all she would still be doing it almost 13 hours later. And ....where is she moving from? Where exactly is he heading to check on her? Did they have a room in that cottage lined passageway?

            No-one knows where they moved from,... odd that he didnt mention the address. Or at least the street.
            Or did he? Was it maybe withheld that Israel was living in that passageway courtesy of Wess and the club?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              I had missed this post Fleetwood, but I feel less alone now after reading it. Although I do think its possible...within the realm of it anyway....that Israel was there at that time, but he was actually leaving the club and he saw the physical assault on the very spot where Liz is found as he left via the gates.
              Can you remind why, if that were true, he didn't just tell the police he witnessed an assault when leaving the club?

              A few things about his story make it hard to accept as a whole, but maybe some parts were at least in part truthful. The premise for his being there at 12:45 is one of those really questionable elements..because after he left his wife she would have had very few things to move. Likely no furniture, not likely any large trunks or heavy large items, probably just some clothing and a few keepsakes. He left her around noon.......and he returns almost 13 hours later suggesting that he was checking to see if she had finished? Assuming she did focus on the move after he left, there would be no chance at all she would still be doing it almost 13 hours later. And ....where is she moving from? Where exactly is he heading to check on her? Did they have a room in that cottage lined passageway?
              Did they have a room in that cottage lined passageway? For those who doubt Schwartz, the likely answer is "maybe". No one else is going to answer a question like that.

              Was he checking to see if she had finished moving, or was it question of the move not being a done deal?

              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.

              Humour me this, Michael. If Schwartz's absence was due to him having been at the markets, do you suppose he was walking home carrying a bag of some sort?

              No-one knows where they moved from,... odd that he didnt mention the address. Or at least the street.
              Or did he? Was it maybe withheld that Israel was living in that passageway courtesy of Wess and the club?
              That and not revealing his name may have been a condition of doing the interview.
              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                Can you remind why, if that were true, he didn't just tell the police he witnessed an assault when leaving the club?

                The most valuable element that Schwartz delivers is a man assaulting Liz off-site. Off the property, hence, in no way a man from the club that night. The evidence as it is though suggests that the men at, or from, the club at that time were the ONLY men near the murder site.

                Did they have a room in that cottage lined passageway? For those who doubt Schwartz, the likely answer is "maybe". No one else is going to answer a question like that.

                Just illustrating that before anyone accepts Schwartz's statement it would be important to have that detail answered. I cant recall another situation in these cases where the home address or area of the witness isnt stated for the record.

                Was he checking to see if she had finished moving, or was it question of the move not being a done deal?

                He went and stayed at his new home that night, so its not an issue of whether his new place fell through at the last minute.

                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. Humour me this, Michael. If Schwartz's absence was due to him having been at the markets, do you suppose he was walking home carrying a bag of some sort?

                Well, an argument could be made that he was selling things there, not buying, so him not having anything with him at the time isnt, for me, a problem. What is a problem for me is that he claims he was seeing if his wife had finished moving after almost 13 hours being away from her. I cant imagine she would have enough things to move that would take her more than an hour or so, unless she dawdled, but they did have to be in the new place that night...so, she likely moved fairly quickly.

                That and not revealing his name may have been a condition of doing the interview.

                If you are addressing the line you quoted from, ... why would the police agree to hold back the fact he lived in one of the cottages in their report?
                I think if he did live in one of those cottages, it was withheld by Israel or Wess or both, not the police. Maybe they felt if they did tell the police they would be less likely to see him as an "unattached/unafilliated bystander'". Which is basically how he comes off in his story. He just happened to be there.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  The most valuable element that Schwartz delivers is a man assaulting Liz off-site. Off the property, hence, in no way a man from the club that night. The evidence as it is though suggests that the men at, or from, the club at that time were the ONLY men near the murder site.
                  Had Schwartz told the police of witnessing an assault on the footway after leaving the club​, it would still be off-site assault. So, I don't grasp your argument.

                  Just illustrating that before anyone accepts Schwartz's statement it would be important to have that detail answered. I cant recall another situation in these cases where the home address or area of the witness isnt stated for the record.
                  How many opinions do you suppose would be shifted, if proof of Scwartz living in one of the tenements was found?

                  He went and stayed at his new home that night, so its not an issue of whether his new place fell through at the last minute.
                  That is not the issue, which is whether the new residence arrangement was finalised before Schwartz went out for the day.

                  Well, an argument could be made that he was selling things there, not buying, so him not having anything with him at the time isnt, for me, a problem. What is a problem for me is that he claims he was seeing if his wife had finished moving after almost 13 hours being away from her. I cant imagine she would have enough things to move that would take her more than an hour or so, unless she dawdled, but they did have to be in the new place that night...so, she likely moved fairly quickly.
                  ​Had Schwartz planned to be out all day, the length of time for his wife to move their possessions is irrelevant. The press report implies that he was checking on the success of the move, not the logistics of moving. What Schwartz told the Star man may not have been true, but at face value his checking on the move seems plausible.

                  As for Schwartz's purpose at the markets, had he in fact been out all day and only getting home at close to 1am, then I would certainly presume he was seller, not a buyer. If you too suppose he was a buyer, how do you suppose he got his wares to market, if he didn't have a costermonger cart?

                  Assuming Schwartz had a bag means you could picture both Schwartz and Goldstein carrying a bag while walking down Berner St. Now, have a 'look' at their faces...

                  If you are addressing the line you quoted from, ... why would the police agree to hold back the fact he lived in one of the cottages in their report?

                  I think if he did live in one of those cottages, it was withheld by Israel or Wess or both, not the police. Maybe they felt if they did tell the police they would be less likely to see him as an "unattached/unafilliated bystander'". Which is basically how he comes off in his story. He just happened to be there.
                  Sorry, you were referring to the police report - I was referring to the press interview.​ I agree that his just happening to be there seems a bit too convenient.
                  Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    If you too suppose he was a buyer...
                    Seller!
                    Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • It has been mentioned before. There are two doors very very close to each other on Berner Street, One is a side door to the pub another is the front door of the house next door to Packers house. Somebody could easily come out of one of those doors and a mistake made that it was the pub. Certainly with all the commotion going on. Have a look at the photo of the pub. Yes it has front doors on the corner BUT if it was a crafty after hours drink any lock in customer would come out of the side door OR was it somebody coming out of the house. To close to call if you look at the photo. Those houses have direct access to the club yard, Possibly have to climb a fence but easy access to escape. Packers house had very good access to the yard as far as I can see.

                      NW

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
                        It has been mentioned before. There are two doors very very close to each other on Berner Street, One is a side door to the pub another is the front door of the house next door to Packers house. Somebody could easily come out of one of those doors and a mistake made that it was the pub. Certainly with all the commotion going on. Have a look at the photo of the pub. Yes it has front doors on the corner BUT if it was a crafty after hours drink any lock in customer would come out of the side door OR was it somebody coming out of the house. To close to call if you look at the photo. Those houses have direct access to the club yard, Possibly have to climb a fence but easy access to escape. Packers house had very good access to the yard as far as I can see.

                        NW
                        That would presuppose that Pipeman came from that particular door then? Because he just magically appears there, as does Israel and BSM for that matter. What Im getting at it that Pipeman had to come out from inside one of those doors to the street..assuming he was actually there...and not in the club passage smoking. I could say that Israel and BSM had to come from somewhere too..because no-one sees them either. But Pipeman is outside a location that serves alcohol presumably, since its referred to as a "pub" entrance. Which bring me back to my point....I believe the ONLY address where someone could buy at drink that night, on that street, at 12:30ish, is at 40 Berner Street.

                        Yes, he could just be hanging about outside a pub that is closed, but my reply to that would be...if the pub is closed at midnight, as was the bylaw, then what is he still doing there at 12:45, and if he didnt come from out of the pub, then where did he come from to suddenly be there? How come no-one, other than Schwartz, sees him at all?
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 02-09-2024, 02:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by New Waterloo View Post
                          It has been mentioned before. There are two doors very very close to each other on Berner Street, One is a side door to the pub another is the front door of the house next door to Packers house. Somebody could easily come out of one of those doors and a mistake made that it was the pub. Certainly with all the commotion going on. Have a look at the photo of the pub. Yes it has front doors on the corner BUT if it was a crafty after hours drink any lock in customer would come out of the side door OR was it somebody coming out of the house. To close to call if you look at the photo. Those houses have direct access to the club yard, Possibly have to climb a fence but easy access to escape. Packers house had very good access to the yard as far as I can see.

                          NW
                          I presume you refer to the press report, as in the police report the man is on the opposite side of the street. So, what doorway and pub do you suppose the following refers to?

                          The Hungarian ... crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

                          Schwartz was walking by the board school and was just about to step off the kerb and onto Fairclough St. What pub had a doorway a few doors off from that point? There was a pub on the adjacent corner, but that is not a few doors off - at a pinch you could say it was one door off - so the doorway and pub in question must refer to something else.​
                          Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Hello Michael. Thank you for responding to my confusion over the doors also thanks NotBlamed. There is so much on the site to read and understand and your knowledge is appreciated. Can I just add for the benefit of those who may not be aware. Please forgive me if its obvious but there is a cultural practice in England called a 'lock in' where pubs remain 'open' to favoured friends to remain and continue drinking alcohol. Doors are locked, curtains drawn. It is quite lawful to do this IF no payment takes place. In other words the pub reverts in law to a private place. In reality some continue selling alcohol which is against the law and risk a visit from the constabulary and a loss of licence. (After warnings) so it is quite possible that people could be in the pub after closing time. I should mention that people cannot enter the pub during the illegal drinking session only remain after the closing time. Again apologies if most knew this. The premises are private residences when closed and public places when open.

                            NW

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                              I presume you refer to the press report, as in the police report the man is on the opposite side of the street. So, what doorway and pub do you suppose the following refers to?

                              The Hungarian ... crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off...

                              Schwartz was walking by the board school and was just about to step off the kerb and onto Fairclough St. What pub had a doorway a few doors off from that point? There was a pub on the adjacent corner, but that is not a few doors off - at a pinch you could say it was one door off - so the doorway and pub in question must refer to something else.​
                              Hi Andrew,

                              The doorway of the Nelson is the only public-house doorway from which Pipeman could have emerged and been visible to BSMan, and vice-versa.

                              Cheer, 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,

                                The doorway of the Nelson is the only public-house doorway from which Pipeman could have emerged and been visible to BSMan, and vice-versa.

                                Cheer, George
                                Given that the Nelson was not a few doors off from the point of view of the witness, I presume the doorway of the public-house a few doors off​ to contain a translation error.
                                Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X