A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[Mark J D]

Damn, of course you're probably right. I was thinking of the cardboard boxes, 20 to a box, or long cartons that are used nowadays. But my father (born in 1911) had one just like you're talking about. As I recall, it was gold-plated with a monogramed plate on the cover and had red satin lining. He kept it for years even after he had to quit smoking due to emphysema. After Dad died in 1999, one of my sisters got the case and a beautiful enameled antique lighter also.

If the boxes were made as part of a cottage industry, isn't it more likely that they were of wood than of metal, precious or otherwise?

What's more, we do know that families made up card matchboxes at home, 2d for 144, and buy your own glue...

https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2019/10/i730/pg-201-1.jpg

Cigarette boxes also?

M.

[Paddy]

Was Goldstein ever considered to be a witness? In 1891 he was in the census staying in a sea front house in the Isle of Sheppey ?

[C. F. Leon]

They would be cigarette holders, hard metal cases that are hinged. These were bought to store one's cigarettes in. So he wasn't selling cigarettes, just an accessary for them.

- Jeff

Damn, of course you're probably right. I was thinking of the cardboard boxes, 20 to a box, or long cartons that are used nowadays. But my father (born in 1911) had one just like you're talking about. As I recall, it was gold-plated with a monogramed plate on the cover and had red satin lining. He kept it for years even after he had to quit smoking due to emphysema. After Dad died in 1999, one of my sisters got the case and a beautiful enameled antique lighter also.

[JeffHamm]

Yes he did , However its the one thing Schwartz was mistaken about. Who was most likly to have the lipski shouted out to him , Schwartz or Pipeman?

Given the description of Pipeman that doesnt quiet match that of a Jew .

Well, Anderson was of the belief that Schwartz himself was more likely the intended target. Schwartz originally thought it was shouted at Pipeman. Who was more likely boils down to an assessment of whether or not Schwartz's initial impression was incorrect, compared with Anderson's alternative suggestion based upon his interview with Schwartz and his knowledge of the times (and how Lipski was used as an insult towards Jews).

I believe it is more common for people today to side with Anderson, and to view Schwartz as probably mistaken in his interpretation of whom Lipski was shouted at. This is based in part upon the surviving police reports where it is stated that when questioned Schwartz was, in the end, unsure whom it was shouted at. This implies that when Anderson, during questioning, provided the alternative to Schwartz and it was then that Schwartz realised he himself may have been the intended target of the shout. (oh dear, was it Anderson or Abberline? I keep getting them mixed up here).

Anyway, given Schwartz appears to have accepted the possibility that he may have been the intended target, the probabilities lean towards that being the case in my view. And if that's the case, then Pipeman no longer appears to have been connected to B.S., and probably didn't chase Schwartz though he may have left the area in the same direction (leading to Schwartz's belief he was being chased).

Again, this many years after the events we can never know if that was the case, but from the snippets we have, that appears to be the most likely situation. But of course, it is not the only one.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Schwartz's statement does not survive but the details are given by Chief Inspector Swanson in a report dated 19 October 1888, and are worth repeating here. ¹

12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic - Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran so far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. [Here there is a marginal note. 'The use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew'.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down: age about 30 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

Second man age 35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand. ²

[FISHY1118]

As neither the inquest nor any other surviving press report suggests that such a call ever occurred, I regard the question as meaningless

Your joking right ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So who did BSman call out ''Lipski'' to..... if not Schwartz ?

As neither the inquest nor any other surviving press report suggests that such a call ever occurred, I regard the question as meaningless

[FISHY1118]

Schwartz thought it was Pipeman.

- Jeff

Yes he did , However its the one thing Schwartz was mistaken about. Who was most likly to have the lipski shouted out to him , Schwartz or Pipeman?

Given the description of Pipeman that doesnt quiet match that of a Jew .

[JeffHamm]

So who did BSman call out ''Lipski'' to..... if not Schwartz ?

Schwartz thought it was Pipeman.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It's probably irrelevant, but why "EMPTY cigarette boxes"? Was he selling the cigarettes individually out of the boxes (better profit margin that way)? or did he pick up larger or smaller boxes to resell cigarettes that he already had?

They would be cigarette holders, hard metal cases that are hinged. These were bought to store one's cigarettes in. So he wasn't selling cigarettes, just an accessary for them.

- Jeff

[C. F. Leon]

It's probably irrelevant, but why "EMPTY cigarette boxes"? Was he selling the cigarettes individually out of the boxes (better profit margin that way)? or did he pick up larger or smaller boxes to resell cigarettes that he already had?

[FISHY1118]

Note also the absence of James Brown, who also claimed to have seen Stride at about 12:45. Why no mention of him, and his description of the man he witnessed with a woman he believed to be the deceased?

Is it possible the police were a bit miffed about their 'star' witness being excluded from the inquest? Surely they'd have been above that sort of pettiness. In that case, what is the explanation for Swanson referring to a non-inquest witness at length, and making no mention of a 'competing' witness, who did testify at the inquest?

Baxter's decision not to call Schwartz, does not seem to have had any negative consequences, whereas the polices' continuing faith in Schwartz, ultimately led to the futile search for a man named Lipski.

So who did BSman call out ''Lipski'' to..... if not Schwartz ?

[FISHY1118]

I can just see him running along, with a pipe or something in one hand, and the parcel in the other. Sounds totally realistic.

So what he couldnt put his pipe in his pocket and parcel under his arm while he followed schwartzs? [not very far ] How unimaginable thinking by you.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

This is a portion of Donald Swanson's October 19 report.

"From enquiries made it was found that at:-

12.35 a.m. 30th P.C. 452H Smith saw a man and woman the latter with a red rose talking in Berner Street, this P.C. on seeing the body identified it as being that of the woman whom he had seen & he thus describes the man as age about 28. ht. 5ft. 7in: comp. dark, small dark moustache, dress black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, white collar & tie.

12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [sic – Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski” & then Schwartz walked away, but 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. [Here there is a marginal note. – “The use of ‘Lipski’ increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew”.] Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down:- age about 30 ht. 5 ft. 5in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. second man age 35 ht. 5ft. 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.

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."]

Note the timeline.

Note also the absence of James Brown, who also claimed to have seen Stride at about 12:45. Why no mention of him, and his description of the man he witnessed with a woman he believed to be the deceased?

Is it possible the police were a bit miffed about their 'star' witness being excluded from the inquest? Surely they'd have been above that sort of pettiness. In that case, what is the explanation for Swanson referring to a non-inquest witness at length, and making no mention of a 'competing' witness, who did testify at the inquest?

Baxter's decision not to call Schwartz, does not seem to have had any negative consequences, whereas the polices' continuing faith in Schwartz, ultimately led to the futile search for a man named Lipski.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

At the precise moment of the attact at 12.45 only Schwartz , BSman and Pipeman stride were involved, it quit possible was over in a matter of moments , unless you have another eyewitness account of someone else who saw what Schwartz saw at the same time ?

You miss my point. No surprises there, but let me spell it out for you ...

If people have no trouble in believing that 4 people could arrive on Berner street, participate in quarrelling, assaulting, shouting, and chasing, and then leave in some sense, without anyone noticing a thing, all because it "was over in a matter of moments", then they should not have any trouble in supposing that a single man could subsequently arrive on the scene, in a matter of minutes.

The friction that exists between what is believed to have occurred, and what is believed to be unlikely to have occurred, suggests that common sense is being switched to 'off', to accommodate He Who Shall Not Be Questioned, and then switched back to 'on', to explain what does and does not happen afterward.