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
      “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
      "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
      "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
      "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

      ​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

          Working...
          X