A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[Michael W Richards]

Were the contents of the bag were independently verified, on the night of the murder?

I see no reason to suppose that Goldstein would have been turned away from the yard. He was a member of the club. So, as for his timing, the scenario in #415 would have Diemschitz discovering the body shortly before 12:50. Shortly before that, Fanny Mortimer had locked up for the night, which was shortly after seeing the man with the black bag. Therefore, she sees Goldstein right around the time you suppose the murder occurred, and also very close to the time given by Schwartz. So, why doesn't she see Schwartz?

One of many $10,000 questions here. She saw Leon around 12:55, so my thinking is that when he looked into the passageway he would have seen men. So why didnt he say so? These were his comrades, and by the time he comes in Tuesday night we already have heard from them and what they claimed to have seen and done, and when. All this man had to say via Wess his translator is that "I saw nothing"......just like Eagle. Lave. Diemshutz. Its a small sin, lying by omission, and one that perhaps any friend of the clubs would be willing to make. The absolute safest thing for these men to say is " I saw nothing". Does that mean there was actually nothing to be seen? You be the judge.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Spooner and his date strolled to that point outside the Beehive after leaving the pub on commercial at around 12. Then they were there about 25 minutes before they saw 2 men running.. yelling for help. If they took 20 minutes or so to get to the Beehive, then you have....voila....about 12:40-12:45 when he sees the club men.

Spooner: On Sunday morning, between half-past twelve and one o'clock, I was standing outside the [Beehive] at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. We had been in a beershop at the corner of Settles-street, Commercial-road, and remained till closing time. I stood at the top of Christian-street for a few minutes, and then walked down the street. We had been standing there about 25 minutes, I suppose, when two Jews came running along.

If they took 20 minutes or so to get from the corner of Settles St, Comm Rd, to the Beehive, then they did so to make your theory work. I would suggest having a look at the JtRMap by richardh, to see just how close together those two points were.

As youve noted when you look at the times given by people who either had to know the time...police.... or had just recently checked it, Johnson, Blackwell and Phillips, you cannot use Louis's times or comments, Eagles times and comments, Laves times and comments, or Israels. Excluding Israel...hes the wild card...but excluding him, you have the 3 men who have some or all of their income provided by an operating club at 40 Berner St.

No doubt you can backup this claim with evidence.

To imagine these men wouldnt care how this situation might have looked to the local police isnt reasonable...of course they would.

That is not an excuse for letting your imagination run wild.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

One of many $10,000 questions here. She saw Leon around 12:55, so my thinking is that when he looked into the passageway he would have seen men.

There is no quote or paraphrase of Mortimer that suggests she saw Goldstein walk south on the street at around that time.

In #420, you claim Spooner would have seen the two men running for police between 12:40 and 12:45. That would have Spooner reaching the yard by 12:48 at the latest, but probably a few minutes earlier.

Spooner: I went with them to the yard adjoining No. 40. I saw a young woman lying just inside the gate. There were about fifteen people in the yard standing round - most of them Jews. They were not touching her. I could see it was a young woman before they struck a light. One of the Jews struck a match and I lifted up the chin. I put my hand under the chin and lifted it. The chin was slightly warm, as if chilled. Blood was still flowing from the throat.

So, about 10 minutes before you suppose Goldstein was about to enter the yard, but was supposedly 'encouraged' not to, there are already about 15 people there, not all of them Jews. One of the Gentiles seems to have been...

Fanny: ...on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...

It would seem that Fanny witnessed Spooner place his hand on Stride's chin. Obviously, she could not have been at her door to see Goldstein at that point.

So why didnt he say so?

Because your theory is wrong.

These were his comrades, and by the time he comes in Tuesday night we already have heard from them and what they claimed to have seen and done, and when. All this man had to say via Wess his translator is that "I saw nothing"......just like Eagle. Lave. Diemshutz. Its a small sin, lying by omission, and one that perhaps any friend of the clubs would be willing to make. The absolute safest thing for these men to say is " I saw nothing". Does that mean there was actually nothing to be seen? You be the judge.

If a theory predicts that one or more witnesses should have seen something of relevance to the murder, but claim to have seen nothing, the theory maker has a choice to make. They can:

- realise the theory is completely wrong and start again
- revise the theory to make it compatible with witness accounts
- suppose that one or more witnesses were mistaken or forgot about something
- widen the circle of the conspiracy to include those that the theory maker knows must be lying, because their claims contradict the existing theory


Should the theory fit the facts, or should the facts be made to fit the theory?

[Wickerman]

Goldstein had a full bag of cigarette cartons as a matter of fact, and statements made by some residents in the passageway cottages said they were cigarette makers and still awake at the time the body was discovered. Was Goldstein intending to turn into that yard, and dissuaded by something?

"A matter of fact"?

I find it interesting, that for a person who appears anxious to suggest Schwartz was lying with the story he told police, that this same person accepts without question the unsubstantiated claim that Goldstein had only cigarette cartons in his bag on the night in question.
what evidence do we have that this was indeed "a matter of fact"?

[Fiver]

The risk/reward proposition is not in his favour at that specific location, too many variables and knowledge that people were inside and awake, singing,..the door ajar to the kitchen. Not as secure as Hanbury...which begs the question, why would he seek less privacy after Annie?

If he specifically wanted to kill Stride and not just any woman then he would have to accept the situation as it was.

c.d.

That is true if the murder of Stride was an impulsive act. If Stride was a planned target, it was a poorly chosen location.

[c.d.]

But what if he specifically wanted to kill Stride and she said it is here or not at all?

c.d.

[Fiver]

I don't think that the C5 were all ripper victims. I think that there was a lot of murder going on, that we don't stop and think of, we work on this like these were the only murders of the time. IMHO

There were a lot more period murders than the C5, but most knife murders were stabbings, not throat slitting. The addition of posing the bodies and overkill focused on the lower abdomen link Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes murders. There are enough similarities that Kelly, Tabram, Stride, and McKenzie could all be Ripper victims as well.

Regardless, the Canonical Five is the view of McNaughton, who didn't even join the Met until June 1889. Thomas Arno;d thought there were four victims - apparently ithe C5 minus Eddows or Kelly. Walter Dew believed C5 + Emma Smith and Martha Tabram, but discounted MacKenzie, Coles, and the Whitehall Mystery. Edmund Red thought there were 9 victims.

It's one of many ways the case is not like a whodunnit. In a whodunnit we have a definite list of suspects. In the Ripper case we don't even have a definite list of victims.

[Fiver]

The Mitre Square event was concluded by 1:45am, the apron section and writing were first discovered according to PC Long at around 2:55am. The killer may well have dropped things off in a bolt hole near Berner for all we know. And people would be coming and going from the scene, talking about it as they went their merry way. And how would you know if he was "keeping his head down" after Mitre Square. He might have been wearing a slaughtermans bloody apron himself for all we know, although we do know men around that neighbourhood at night often would look like that.

For your theory to work, the Ripper needs to have heard about Strides murder before he killed Eddowes. How else would he know to take the apron piece that he could later use to implicate the Jews?

[Fiver]

Ive supported questioning the statements of the men paid by the club, I think they had reasons to ensure they looked clean on this, but Im also starting to feel that maybe Louis wasnt the first to discover the body. Or that he arrived around the time Liz is actually being killed.

I have yet to see you provide a plausible reason that club members would lie about when the body was found. If they were worried about bad publicity for the club, the problem was not when the body was found, but where the body was found.

[Fiver]

If a theory predicts that one or more witnesses should have seen something of relevance to the murder, but claim to have seen nothing, the theory maker has a choice to make. They can:

- realise the theory is completely wrong and start again
- revise the theory to make it compatible with witness accounts
- suppose that one or more witnesses were mistaken or forgot about something
- widen the circle of the conspiracy to include those that the theory maker knows must be lying, because their claims contradict the existing theory


Should the theory fit the facts, or should the facts be made to fit the theory?

Thats a common problem, people adjusting facts to fit their theory. Supectology is especially prone to this.

Which leads to things like assuming Sickert's trip to the Continent or Dr Gull's strokes were elaborate ruses to manufacture fake alibis.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

"A matter of fact"?

I find it interesting, that for a person who appears anxious to suggest Schwartz was lying with the story he told police, that this same person accepts without question the unsubstantiated claim that Goldstein had only cigarette cartons in his bag on the night in question.
what evidence do we have that this was indeed "a matter of fact"?

To be fair to Michael, this 'fact' is commonly asserted. Had Goldstein arrived at Leman St police station carrying his bag - nearly 72 hours after the murder as it was - and opened it for inspection, it would tell us nothing about what it contained at the time of the murder. We don't even know that he took the bag to the station. We also don't know for a fact that Wess had to translate for Goldstein, during his station visit. Yet, this too is regarded as fact. All we know in this regard, is that Wess had to persuade Goldstein to go, and accompanied him when he did.

Consider this fact; Stride only had cachous in one hand when she was killed. Is that a Ripperology fact or a true fact?

Spooner: I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand...

It is convenient to suppose that Spooner made a mistake - that it was actually her left hand he was thinking of. How then, was Abraham Herschburg seemingly able to count cachous?

Herschburg: In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How could he know this if the cachous were wrapped in paper that was lodged between the thumb and forefinger of the left hand, which was on the ground? Then there are the witnesses who supposed they had seen grapes in the right hand.

Cachous packets in both hands leads to the notion of Stride attempting to leave the yard with stolen goods, and being caught from behind as she did, presumably by her scarf. This theory has to be ignored, however, because it contradicts the notion of Stride standing in the gateway.

[Wickerman]

To be fair to Michael, this 'fact' is commonly asserted. Had Goldstein arrived at Leman St police station carrying his bag - nearly 72 hours after the murder as it was - and opened it for inspection, it would tell us nothing about what it contained at the time of the murder. We don't even know that he took the bag to the station. We also don't know for a fact that Wess had to translate for Goldstein, during his station visit. Yet, this too is regarded as fact. All we know in this regard, is that Wess had to persuade Goldstein to go, and accompanied him when he did.

It may be commonly repeated, but I'm not sure how many students of the case regard it as a fact.
We should put more thought into what we read and cease regarding these details as factual. It has to stop somewhere, I personally have no theory as to who Goldstein was or what his role may have been. Details will only become clearer when we stop misrepresenting what is written.

Consider this fact; Stride only had cachous in one hand when she was killed. Is that a Ripperology fact or a true fact?

Spooner: I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand...

It is convenient to suppose that Spooner made a mistake - that it was actually her left hand he was thinking of. How then, was Abraham Herschburg seemingly able to count cachous?

Herschburg: In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous.

How could he know this if the cachous were wrapped in paper that was lodged between the thumb and forefinger of the left hand, which was on the ground? Then there are the witnesses who supposed they had seen grapes in the right hand.

Cachous packets in both hands leads to the notion of Stride attempting to leave the yard with stolen goods, and being caught from behind as she did, presumably by her scarf. This theory has to be ignored, however, because it contradicts the notion of Stride standing in the gateway.

There is also the possibility the reporter made an error as to which hand contained the cachous, not necessarily the witness (Spooner).

As Stride was found on her left side, with her left arm under her body, but the forearm projecting out away from her. This means the back of her left hand will have been on the ground. Try that position yourself, you can't turn the palm of the hand to face the ground. So, her left palm was faced up, so if the packet of cachous was already on the ground, but her hand was positioned over the cachous, where they could be seen between the thumb & forefinger, as her fingers may clench together they may have trapped the packet of cachous between her fingers as they curled up.

The resulting appearance was that she held a packet of cachous between her thumb and forefinger - a totally unnatural position for holding anything in your hand. If the packet had been found in the palm of her hand then we could believe she was holding them. But as they were only pinched between her thumb & forefinger, I suspect the packet was already on the ground, it was just that her left hand fell partially over the packet, between her thumb & forefinger.
This cachous business has been a huge distraction to the case.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no quote or paraphrase of Mortimer that suggests she saw Goldstein walk south on the street at around that time.

In #420, you claim Spooner would have seen the two men running for police between 12:40 and 12:45. That would have Spooner reaching the yard by 12:48 at the latest, but probably a few minutes earlier.

Spooner: I went with them to the yard adjoining No. 40. I saw a young woman lying just inside the gate. There were about fifteen people in the yard standing round - most of them Jews. They were not touching her. I could see it was a young woman before they struck a light. One of the Jews struck a match and I lifted up the chin. I put my hand under the chin and lifted it. The chin was slightly warm, as if chilled. Blood was still flowing from the throat.

So, about 10 minutes before you suppose Goldstein was about to enter the yard, but was supposedly 'encouraged' not to, there are already about 15 people there, not all of them Jews. One of the Gentiles seems to have been...

Fanny: ...on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gate with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm...

It would seem that Fanny witnessed Spooner place his hand on Stride's chin. Obviously, she could not have been at her door to see Goldstein at that point.



Because your theory is wrong.



If a theory predicts that one or more witnesses should have seen something of relevance to the murder, but claim to have seen nothing, the theory maker has a choice to make. They can:

- realise the theory is completely wrong and start again
- revise the theory to make it compatible with witness accounts
- suppose that one or more witnesses were mistaken or forgot about something
- widen the circle of the conspiracy to include those that the theory maker knows must be lying, because their claims contradict the existing theory


Should the theory fit the facts, or should the facts be made to fit the theory?

Im not predicting anything, Im suggesting that some witnesses were either intentionally misleading or all off on their timing by around 20 minutes. I think under the circumstances the probabilities are greater for the first of those 2 options. Louis, Morris and Lave...then later, Israel.

[Michael W Richards]

"A matter of fact"?

I find it interesting, that for a person who appears anxious to suggest Schwartz was lying with the story he told police, that this same person accepts without question the unsubstantiated claim that Goldstein had only cigarette cartons in his bag on the night in question.
what evidence do we have that this was indeed "a matter of fact"?

If we are being pedantic...since I trust that you know it cannot be proven absolutely since we dont even meet him until 3 days later and have no way to confirm what was in that bag. I wonder though, since youre so resistant to the idea that the club members wouldnt withold or mislead, why would you extend less courtesy to Mr Goldstein? After all, you are content to accept statements without any secondary sources at all, so why doesnt Leon get the benefit of the doubt from you as well?

This has been overly complicated by the fact that some members refuse to see the very natural and understandable elements to my suggestion. The men I mentioned all gave statements that can be questioned...if Eagle arrived at 12:40 and Lave was there at that time, why wouldnt they see each other? And where is Liz at this time...shes not seen on the street again after 12:35, doesnt it make sense that she would be in that passageway? She may have been cut as early as 12:46ish, does she just dash to the spot she will be killed on, or does she end up at that spot that she is attacked on, inferring she was in the passageway when attacked? The bigger question would be why do Louis, Morris, Mrs D, and Lave have storylines where they dont see people that say they were there or timings that are all, suspiciously, off by the same amount of time? Why do a group of witnesses say they were by the body with Louis around 12:40-45 when Louis says he didnt even arrive until 1? And if he arrived at 1, how does Lamb suddenly arrive there too? With Eagle. After a few minutes out on the streets calling for help.

As you can see there are many issues that arise when you use the 4 witnesses I mentioned as being the truthful accounts. And if 4 witnesses have given truly independent accounts, what are the chances that all 4 would be off on their times by the same amount?

[Michael W Richards]

But what if he specifically wanted to kill Stride and she said it is here or not at all?

c.d.

If he wants to kill her specifically cd, then she is not a randomly acquired target is she? Like the ones Jack seeks out?