A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Swanson's report strongly suggests to me that Pipeman was on the board school side, and that he was to the north of Schwartz. How else could he not be noticed until Schwartz crosses Berner St, and how else could he follow Schwartz, if Schwartz is heading south or south then east (in Fairclough St)?

So, what's all this about the doorway of a pub a few doors off? To answer that question with another question; A few doors off, from who or what? At this point in the story, Schwartz is about to step from the kerb onto Fairclough St. What pub is a few doors off from there? Is it possible that "the doorway of the public-house" is a mistranslation of "the entrance to the court that leads to the public-house"? So, what public-house could be accessed by a court, which had an entrance that was a few doors from Schwartz as he stepped off the kerb, which is in a location that is compatible with Swanson's report?

The answer is; The Red Lion, 24 Batty St.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I've done a lot of genealogy work. I know how difficult it can be, but one lesson I have learned is the truth is usually found somewhere, you just need to look in the right places. as yet, no right places exist for Israel Schwartz

The following is from the entry for Israel Schwartz in Chris Scott's Jack the Ripper: A Cast of Thousands.

Such an important witness proves to be remarkable elusive. One identification is from the 1891 census data and involves a family living at 22 Samuel Street, St. George in the East. The residents are as follows:
Head:
Israel Schwartz aged 27 born Poland - Tailor's presser
Wife:
Eva Schwartz aged 27 born Poland
Children:
Dinah E aged 6 born Poland
Louis aged 1 months born St George's.
The obvious difficulty with this candidate is that his place of birth - as with his wife and older child - is given as Poland, not Hungary. It is also only possible to say that Schwartz and his family came to England some time between 1885 (the year of birth of his daughter, born in Poland) and early 1891 (the date of the birth of his son, born in St. George's.) The identification of this man as the witness Schwartz can only be accepted as a possible, not definite, match.

This follows:

It has to be said that other Israel Schwartz identifications fare no better, if not worse. In the 1901 census there is this listing:
8 Little Alie Street
Whitechapel London
Head of Household:
Israel Schwartz
Aged 35
Russian Subject
Profession: Cigarette Maker
Millie Schwartz
Wife
Aged 35
Russian Subject
Samuel Schwartz
Son
Aged 6
Russian Subject
Rueben Schwartz
Son
Aged 2

The address is certainly in the right area but the fact that the older son is listed as a Russian subject suggests that the family did not come to England until after 1895.

So, that last point obviously seems a problem, but could this Israel Schwartz have left England and returned years later?

Now consider Leon Goldstein. According to Chris, the best census match for Goldstein is contained in this post ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/1876-leon-goldstein?p=81628#post81628

So, in 1891 we have a Russia born Leon Goldstein, aged 25, whose profession is cigarette maker.

In 1901 we have a Russian subject named Israel Schwartz, aged 35, whose profession is cigarette maker.

Is the 1891 Leon Goldstein in the 1901 census?

[Wickerman]

Hello all. NotBlamedForNothing, Andrew makes a very good observation about Goldstein going to Leman Street Police Station. It is a quote. Can we double check that time. Does Swanson really mean "about 1am 30th Leon Goldstein of........ I guess this has been mention before but isn't that around the time that Diemschutz arrives home with his cart. Also the date seems incorrect on the victim page of the site. Her murder date was early hours Sunday 30th September 1888 or am I getting confused.

Swanson is using the incident times, not the time the witness gave a statement.
It's another example of how Swanson structures his notes, not how we think today.

Swanson's notes begin with:
1 am body of woman found....
1.10 am body examined by doctor...
12:35 PC Smith saw a man....
12:45 Israel Schwartz.......stated that at that hour, etc.
about 1 am Leon Goldstein.....with a black bag.

So yes, Swanson writes that Goldstein stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour...

Mortimer said:
"It was just after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School...."
Daily News.

[FrankO]

Swanson's report:

about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before. [Here there is a marginal note. - "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked".]

Did Goldstein's coming forward remove suspicion, or cause it?

I think Mortimer's story about seeing this mystery man passing with a shiny Black bag and looking up at the club caused it and if we are to believe the 7 October quote, then his coming forward removed it.

[New Waterloo]

Hello all. NotBlamedForNothing, Andrew makes a very good observation about Goldstein going to Leman Street Police Station. It is a quote. Can we double check that time. Does Swanson really mean "about 1am 30th Leon Goldstein of........ I guess this has been mention before but isn't that around the time that Diemschutz arrives home with his cart. Also the date seems incorrect on the victim page of the site. Her murder date was early hours Sunday 30th September 1888 or am I getting confused.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I wonder if Simon thinks that we don't exist..... maybe I'm talking to myself....is there anybody really out there????

That's what she said ...

[Wickerman]

By means unknown, Goldstein had to be persuaded to clear himself of suspicion.

Something is amiss.

There's an element of trust, that we as modern theorists cannot account for.
In other countries the authorities treated Jews badly, pogroms across Europe eventually caused them to flee to England, but they still formed their own communities and avoided the law at all costs.
When Jews are slow to bring attention to themselves it isn't always because they are guilty of something.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Maybe the quote below from the Lloyd's Weekly News of 7 October is interesting, too, Andrew.

"Reports have been circulated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street."

Swanson's report:

about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before. [Here there is a marginal note. - "Who saw this man go down Berner St. or did he come forward to clear himself in case any questions might be asked".]

Did Goldstein's coming forward remove suspicion, or cause it?

[Wickerman]

Perhaps this is where the solution can be found?...

I wonder if Simon thinks that we don't exist..... maybe I'm talking to myself....is there anybody really out there????

[FrankO]

Interesting thought, Frank.
I guess it would depend on the police - did they at any stage suppose a man seen passing through the street at around the time of the murder, could have had anything to do with the murder?

Maybe the quote below from the Lloyd's Weekly News of 7 October is interesting, too, Andrew.

"Reports have been circulated this week of a man having been seen in the streets with a black bag about the time of the murders; but suspicion was removed by a young traveller named Goldstein coming forward and stating that he was in Berner Street."

I would hope the duty officer at Leman St on the Tuesday night, would have at least asked why he was coming forward now, and not at least 24 hours earlier.

I would have hoped that too, but since we don't know, we can only guess. The most obvious to me would be that Goldstein didn't want to get involved and that Wess had to convince him to go before he would become a suspect.

The best,
Frank

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Andrew,

I don't pretend to know, but might that just have been because of the very reason you mention - that the public were made aware that the police were doubting Schwartz's story of a man assaulting a woman close to where Stride was found dead - and that the police might shift their attention from Schwartz's Mr. BS to this mysterious man with his shiny bag that had passed through Berner Street around the time of the murder?

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Frank

Interesting thought, Frank.
I guess it would depend on the police - did they at any stage suppose a man seen passing through the street at around the time of the murder, could have had anything to do with the murder? I would hope the duty officer at Leman St on the Tuesday night, would have at least asked why he was coming forward now, and not at least 24 hours earlier.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

RD.... have you had your morning coffee yet?

The cachous represent a smoking gun that something is amiss about Schwartz's story.

Jon

The reason I don't concern myself with what Schwartz said, or claimed he saw is, I don't believe him.

The non-appearance of Schwartz at the inquest has been the source of numerous debates for several years. It appears the Coroner did not choose to use him as a witness, so why?
Consistent with this is the press article I just posted above where it is suggested the police doubt his story. Against this is the note by Swanson which appears to say the police have no doubt about his story.

Something is amiss.

To me they are obviously waiting for some confirmation to surface that confirms Schwartz's story.
And to me that says a great deal, because as has been pointed out. He mentions no other witnesses, and none of them mention him.
Something is amiss.

Perhaps this is where the solution can be found?...

Did Israel Schwartz actually exist?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't, but you are implying Wess knew but held back, and this report doesn't suggest that.
"he (Wess) persuaded him (Goldstein) last night to go to police".
The article also suggests Wess only just found out.

By means unknown, Goldstein had to be persuaded to clear himself of suspicion.

Something is amiss.

[FrankO]

Obviously, you have no have no idea why Wess waited until very late Tuesday - the same day the public were made aware of the police doubting the Hungarians' story.

Hi Andrew,

I don't pretend to know, but might that just have been because of the very reason you mention - that the public were made aware that the police were doubting Schwartz's story of a man assaulting a woman close to where Stride was found dead - and that the police might shift their attention from Schwartz's Mr. BS to this mysterious man with his shiny bag that had passed through Berner Street around the time of the murder?

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Frank

[Wickerman]

Interesting thread NBFN.


I find the idea that Goldstein and Schwartz may have been the same man quite fascinating.

Can it be conclusively proven that they were different men?

If not, then I suggest you may be on to something.

It's good to hypothesize when there's still scope for particular scenarios.

I always find that those who try to shut you down or try and distract from your point by shifting focus from your initial hypothesis are better to not engage with; because unfortunately there are those who dislike the hypothetical approach.

I personally enjoy the approach as long as it's within reason and as far as I can see so far from this thread; your hypothesis warrants closer scrutiny and attention, and so well done for that.

RD

RD.... have you had your morning coffee yet?