Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at Leon Goldstein

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

  • #16
    i want to public apologize to not for my previous post. sometimes i drink too much and well you know.. my bad
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 05-02-2021, 03:12 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      i want to public apologize to not for my previous post. sometimes i drink too much and well you know.. my bad
      Thanks Abby. It's all good.

      Might crack open a bottle myself LOL
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #18
        Where is Mortimer quoted seeing Goldstein leave the yard, am I missing something?

        Goldstein was in Spectacle Alley prior, presumably there were witnesses to that. Picking pop cigarette boxes, presumably there are witnesses to that.

        Since Spectacle Alley is north of Berner Street it is to be expected that he would be heading down Berner, just as Mortimer described. And since he lived in Christian, it is expected he would go past the Board school, just as Mortimer described.

        It seems there is a lot of fudging of the known evidence in this thread in an attempt to create something that isn't there. Let's just stick with what we know.
        dustymiller
        aka drstrange

        Comment


        • #19
          The initial posts in The Batty Street Lodger thread (by Robert), are an amalgamation of earlier posts on the topic (necessary, I believe, due to a server issue way back).

          Below is a copy & paste of one of those posts (with a touch of presentational editing).

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Grey Hunter - 5th May 2006, 10:27 AM

          In 1995 I had to accept that the Batty Street lodger story was tenuous at best, and that it could be relatively easily countered as being just another press suspect story without corroboration.

          The distinguished playwright, author, and journalist George R. Sims had featured prominently in the 1995 work, and he was known to be very interested in Jack the Ripper, making regular commentary at the time, and in subsequent years. One of his later contributions was a very long piece, 'Who Was Jack the Ripper?' that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly News of 22 September 1907. This illustrated article, which was discovered as a result of letters of Sims that I obtained in 1993, was very detailed and examined the theories on the identity of the Ripper, particulary 'the Polish Jew' [Kosminski], the 'Russian doctor' [Ostrog], and 'the doctor, who had been an inmate in a lunatic asylum and who drowned in the Thames' [Druitt]. He also mentioned the theory of 'a young American medical student' that was based on Wynne Baxter's story of the American attempting to purchase female organs. Sims left no doubt that his preferred suspect was the man drowned in the Thames. This article showed the continuing interest in the Ripper crimes and resulted in Sims being contacted by interested readers of his piece.

          In 1996 I purchased a bound scrap-book of press cuttings on famous murders and mysteries that had been compiled by William Hodge & Co., Edinburgh, publishers of the famous Notable British Trials series. Imagine my amazement when I opened this volume and found, on the first page, a cutting from the Yarmouth Independent of 25 February 1911. It was headed 'ADVENTURES OF A JOURNALIST' by George R. Sims and was part VIII 'ON THE TRACK.' He gave the sub-title as "The Unsolved Mysteries of Crime" and the first case related was as follows -

          JACK THE RIPPER.

          The crimes of Jack the Ripper are still debated and from time to time the discussion as to his identity is revived in the Press.
          Two adventures befel me as a journalist in this case. For many nights during the hue and cry I was in the area to which the crimes were confined. It was therefore with mixed feelings that I discovered that my portrait had been taken to Dr. Forbes Winslow, who was writing a good deal on the case at the time, and given to him with the request that he would send it to the police as there was no doubt I was the guilty man.
          As a matter of fact the features of the man who is now believed by the authorities to have been Jack, did bear a certain resemblance to mine.
          Three years ago, when the discussion as to Jack's identity cropped up again in the Press, I wrote on the subject. Soon afterwards a lady called upon me late one night. She came to tell me that the Whitechapel fiend had lodged in her house. On the night of the double murder he came in at two in the morning. The next day her husband, going into the lodger's room after he had left it, saw a black bag, and on opening it discovered a long knife, and two bloodstained cuffs. The lodger was a medical man, an American. The next day he paid his rent, took his luggage and left. Then the police were communicated with but nothing more was heard of the American doctor with the suspicious black bag.
          "But," said my lady visitor, "I have seen him again this week. He is now in practice in the North West of London."
          She gave his name and address and the names of two people who were prepared to come forward and identify him as the lodger with the black bag, the knife, and the incriminating cuffs. The next day I took the information, for what it might be worth, to the proper quarters. But the doctor was not disturbed in his practice. There was ample proof that the real author of the horrors had committed suicide in the last stage of his manical frenzy.


          The huge relevance of this story is the fact that it came to light nearly twenty years after the murders and is totally unconnected with the 1888 press reports of the Batty Street lodger to which it must refer - there are too many points of similarity. It must be seen as corrobration of the October 1888 lodger story. The woman had nothing to gain and actually supplied details of her then current suspect. It is arguable that she, and the other two, would still be able to recognise a lodger she had taken in so many years before. The German woman, if it was her, would certainly be speaking good English after so many years, when she saw Sims, and the details he obtained were given by the actual landlady herself. The idea of bloodstained cuffs rings true, in those day cuffs, like collars, were often detachable for washing. As in the 1888 story, the events described relate to the night of the 'double event' and the lodger coming it at 2.00 a.m. would tie in as a 15 minute walk from Mitre Square, even if deviating via back streets, would be about right.

          Anyway, all this is food for thought, and I am aware that we have no other corroborative evidence other than the press reports. But they, I feel, are compelling and all this cannot be dismissed out of hand. The answer may never be known, but there must be a possibility that some further documents from Sims' collection may turn up some day and cast further light on his late night visitor back in 1907/8.

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The Batty Street Lodger is a complex topic. The Irish Times, Oct 17, is effectively a good brief overview.

          Now if only we knew the identity of the lodger, we might be tantalisingly close to knowing the identity of the man himself. There are clues.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #20
            There seems to be an avoidance of acknowledging Goldstein was in Spectacle Alley, can we address that instead of making silly claims and changing the subject?

            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              There seems to be an avoidance of acknowledging Goldstein was in Spectacle Alley, can we address that instead of making silly claims and changing the subject?
              Hi drstrange169,

              I recall that Goldstein was identified and cleared, but I don't recall him being located in Spectacle Alley? Where do you get that from? Sorry if it's something well known, but it's not a bit of information I'm aware of. Do we have an official documentation we can point to? If so, can you point to it as that might serve to nip this in the bud, and even if not, I would appreciate it. Cheers.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                Where is Mortimer quoted seeing Goldstein leave the yard, am I missing something?
                What's it to you, if you suppose Mortimer is the most unreliable of witnesses?

                Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                Why is people with dubious suspects, always base their theories around the most unreliable witnesses?
                The reason for supposing Goldstein walked out of the yard is a combination of the following:

                What Fanny said - which indicates she witnessed Goldstein close to the time of the murder, and walking in a direction which suggested he was coming from the club.

                The front door of the club being locked - thus it would have been rather obvious if Goldstein had gone out the door. So the yard would seem far more likely.

                He was a club member - what are chances that a club member appearing to have come from the club had actually been at the club? Quite high.

                He may have had cigarette boxes in the bag when arriving at the club - cigarette makers inhabited the tenements, so it makes more sense to suppose that the boxes were eventually dropped off somewhere on the property, rather than at his own residence.

                Further description of Goldstein's behaviour, provided by Walter Dew - he had probably read the police statement referred to by the Daily News & Evening News:

                A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement.

                Neither newspaper report quotes Mortimer, in spite of her statement being deemed important. We can surmise from this that the 'important statement' was made to the police, not a journalist. Dew likely read this statement, unlike the papers who only got what the police deemed to be strategically useful to them. The EN knew this to be the case, which is why they went and did their own Mortimer interview. Lo and behold they got the bombshell...

                He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                According to Dew, Goldstein crossed Berner street immediately on exiting the yard. If he was on his way back to Spectacle Alley, he would have then needed to re-cross Berner street. So why cross it in the first place? Simple; to avoid the woman on her doorstep.

                Was he going back to Spectacle Alley though, or was heading in the direction of Aldgate with other business to attend to?

                Goldstein was in Spectacle Alley prior, presumably there were witnesses to that. Picking pop cigarette boxes, presumably there are witnesses to that.
                Presumably there were, and I have no doubts he had been to the coffee shop there. It's just that no one got to see the contents of the bag that night, that we know of, with one possible exception!

                Since Spectacle Alley is north of Berner Street it is to be expected that he would be heading down Berner, just as Mortimer described. And since he lived in Christian, it is expected he would go past the Board school, just as Mortimer described.
                Once again, the key word highlighted...

                Mortimer: It was soon 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 around the corner by the Board School.

                If she had only seen him once, that word would not have been spoken, due to being redundant.

                It is crystal clear that Fanny saw Leon twice, in the leadup to the murder.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                  It is crystal clear that Fanny saw Leon twice, in the leadup to the murder.
                  Au contraire; the word refers to the only man she saw previously to going out.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi drstrange169,

                    I recall that Goldstein was identified and cleared, but I don't recall him being located in Spectacle Alley? Where do you get that from? Sorry if it's something well known, but it's not a bit of information I'm aware of. Do we have an official documentation we can point to? If so, can you point to it as that might serve to nip this in the bud, and even if not, I would appreciate it. Cheers.

                    - Jeff
                    From Swanson's October 19 report, out of the Ultimate JtR Sourcebook:

                    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".]
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                      Au contraire; the word refers to the only man she saw previously to going out.
                      The quote begins...

                      I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

                      That provides the context to her subsequent remarks, so that she then only need have said...

                      ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                      ... and we still know she is talking about her (later) stint outside. But what she actually said was ...

                      ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                      ... implying he was the only man she saw in the later period, that she had also seen in the earlier outside period.


                      Now what almost everyone misses is that there is an another reference to the man with the black bag, in the same quote. Albeit an implicit one...

                      If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.

                      Which means; if a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock, that must have been the man I saw.

                      Contrast this with...

                      If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I would have seen him.

                      Which means; I would have seen a man if he had come out of the yard, but I didn't.

                      Thus Goldstein was effectively mentioned in both quotes, appearing to have just exited the yard.
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        The quote begins...

                        I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

                        That provides the context to her subsequent remarks, so that she then only need have said...

                        ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                        ... and we still know she is talking about her (later) stint outside. But what she actually said was ...

                        ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                        ... implying he was the only man she saw in the later period, that she had also seen in the earlier outside period.


                        Now what almost everyone misses is that there is an another reference to the man with the black bag, in the same quote. Albeit an implicit one...

                        If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.

                        Which means; if a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock, that must have been the man I saw.

                        Contrast this with...

                        If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I would have seen him.

                        Which means; I would have seen a man if he had come out of the yard, but I didn't.

                        Thus Goldstein was effectively mentioned in both quotes, appearing to have just exited the yard.
                        Hi Not

                        I'm still afraid I disagree, with both your interpretations.

                        "Previously" just means - the only man I saw previous to going out at one o'clock.

                        "Must have seen him" means - I could not have avoided seeing him. It does not mean that it must have been a specific man. It just means that in her opinion, it would have been possible for a man to exit the yard without her seeing him.


                        FM saw Leon Goldstein just once.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          The quote begins...

                          I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

                          That provides the context to her subsequent remarks, so that she then only need have said...

                          ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                          ... and we still know she is talking about her (later) stint outside. But what she actually said was ...

                          ... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ...

                          ... implying he was the only man she saw in the later period, that she had also seen in the earlier outside period.


                          Now what almost everyone misses is that there is an another reference to the man with the black bag, in the same quote. Albeit an implicit one...

                          If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.

                          Which means; if a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock, that must have been the man I saw.

                          Contrast this with...

                          If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I would have seen him.

                          Which means; I would have seen a man if he had come out of the yard, but I didn't.

                          Thus Goldstein was effectively mentioned in both quotes, appearing to have just exited the yard.
                          Hi NBFN,

                          I think "...must have seen him" and "...would have seen him" are interchangeable here, indicating she only saw him the once.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            Hi Not

                            I'm still afraid I disagree, with both your interpretations.

                            "Previously" just means - the only man I saw previous to going out at one o'clock.

                            "Must have seen him" means - I could not have avoided seeing him. It does not mean that it must have been a specific man. It just means that in her opinion, it would have been possible for a man to exit the yard without her seeing him.


                            FM saw Leon Goldstein just once.
                            Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Hi NBFN,

                            I think "...must have seen him" and "...would have seen him" are interchangeable here, indicating she only saw him the once.

                            - Jeff
                            As long you both feel you have accounted for all the evidence, including all quotes from all sources, I'm not going to argue with your interpretations or conclusion.
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hello Jeff,

                              "... he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before."

                              Swanson 19th Oct.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                >>What's it to you, if you suppose Mortimer is the most unreliable of witnesses?<<

                                Nobody knows if Mortimer was reliable or not.

                                What we know for a fact is that, as reported by the newspapers and in memoirs, the accounts are contradictory, making her accounts, indisputably, unreliable.

                                That's just a verifiable fact.



                                >>It's just that no one got to see the contents of the bag that night, that we know of, with one possible exception!<<

                                How do you know?

                                Who's to say he didn't pick up the boxes from someone in the coffee shop? We can say with some certainty that someone gave him the boxes, so it follows people would know they were in there.



                                >>Once again, the key word highlighted...<<

                                I don't know you, so I don't know if English is your first language, but the "previously" refers to prior to re-opening her door.

                                After hearing the commotion and re-opening her door, "the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag ..."
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X