Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at Leon Goldstein

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Hi George.

    Let's suppose the sequence of events was:

    1. Goldstein was seen walking up Berner street, by Mrs. Artisan, when on his way to Spectacle Alley.

    2. Goldstein was later seen walking hurriedly down Berner street, by Mrs. Mortimer, when returning home to 22 Christian street, from the coffee house.

    Other than the identity of Mrs. Artisan, there seems to me to be a couple of issues with this sequence.

    "... I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police."

    How much time is implied by "I hadn't long come in"? If Fanny witnessed Goldstein just prior to 12:45 Police time (according to your timeline, if memory serves), and Mrs. Artisan has to see Goldstein early enough for him to get the coffee house, do his business there, and return home, I suspect we could easily be as far back as 12:15 for point 1. Perhaps earlier, if Leon had stayed long enough to enjoy a short black, and chat with some of the people there (who could later verify his whereabouts).

    "I suppose you did not notice a man and woman pass down the street while you were at the door?"

    "No, sir. I think I should have noticed them if they had. Particularly if they'd been strangers, at that time o' night. I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand."


    If the interviewer's question in effect refers to a period before 12:30, would we expect Mrs. Artisan to qualify her answer? Such as ...

    But that was over half an hour before Mr. Lewis discovered the body.

    So does Mrs. Artisan suppose the murder to have occurred in the half hour or more after she came in from the door? I don't get that impression from this ...

    "I should think I must have heard it if the poor creature screamed at all, for I hadn't long come in from the door when I was roused, as I tell you, by that call for the police. But that was from the people as found the body."

    She seems to be implying that the murder must have occurred while at her doorstep, and not after she came in. Was she wrong or is the problem my interpretation of her words?
    Hi Andrew,

    That would be the sequence as I see it. Your question "How much time is implied by "I hadn't long come in"?" is the crux of the matter. For my theory to work I would have to vote for one of Jeff's scenarios where Leon pops into the Spectacle saying he forgot something and stays just long enough to establish a presence. This is not to imply a sinister motive. He could then have a turnaround time for the two sighting of as little as 10-12 minutes.

    I don't read the narrative as Mrs Artisan implying that there was a link between her sighting of Leon and the murder. No one knows the time of the actual murder, Mrs Artisan included.

    Cheers, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Hi Andrew,

      That would be the sequence as I see it. Your question "How much time is implied by "I hadn't long come in"?" is the crux of the matter. For my theory to work I would have to vote for one of Jeff's scenarios where Leon pops into the Spectacle saying he forgot something and stays just long enough to establish a presence. This is not to imply a sinister motive. He could then have a turnaround time for the two sighting of as little as 10-12 minutes.
      Okay, so the best case scenario - if you don't mind me putting that way - is for Goldstein to to be seen heading north at about 12:30 or 12:35 police time. Needless to say, that is when Smith observes Stride with a man. A worse case scenario is that Leon spends significant time at the coffee house, possibly in relation to the cigarette boxes. That would of course put a lot of strain on the meaning of "I hadn't long come in". In fact it would likely mean she had been back in, longer than she had been out.

      That strain could be lessened by making Fanny's sighting closer to the 'about 1am' mentioned in Swanson's report, but that of course would mean Fanny was probably at her doorstep when Schwartz claimed to have been on the street.

      I don't read the narrative as Mrs Artisan implying that there was a link between her sighting of Leon and the murder. No one knows the time of the actual murder, Mrs Artisan included.

      Cheers, George
      That's not what I meant, which was that she seems to believe that the murder occurred while she was at her door. No she doesn't know when the murder occurred, but for her to suppose that it did would seem to support the idea that she had been at her door close enough to the arrival of 'Mr. Lewis', that the murder must have occurred before she went in.
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • #63
        Fanny 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.

        According to everyone except myself, this sentence is identical in meaning to this one ...

        It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

        It's the same sentence except the word 'previously' is omitted. The phrase 'had seen' sets the event in the past, so the sentence still works and has the same apparent meaning. So the implicit argument of those who suppose Fanny only saw Goldstein once, is that her use of the word 'previously', was redundant. Whereas I think her use of that word was quite deliberate. Therefore, ignoring her use the word 'previously', is akin to throwing away evidence.

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

        Suppose for the sake of argument, she were at her doorstep for two roughly 10 minute periods. Suppose also that she had seen Goldstein in the later period. The modified sentence above (sans 'previously'), would probably suffice. Now suppose she had seen Goldstein in the first period. How do you suggest she could articulate that, so as to be unambiguous, and for the sake of the reporter capturing her words faithfully, concise?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
          Fanny 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.

          According to everyone except myself, this sentence is identical in meaning to this one ...

          It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road.

          It's the same sentence except the word 'previously' is omitted. The phrase 'had seen' sets the event in the past, so the sentence still works and has the same apparent meaning. So the implicit argument of those who suppose Fanny only saw Goldstein once, is that her use of the word 'previously', was redundant. Whereas I think her use of that word was quite deliberate. Therefore, ignoring her use the word 'previously', is akin to throwing away evidence.

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

          Suppose for the sake of argument, she were at her doorstep for two roughly 10 minute periods. Suppose also that she had seen Goldstein in the later period. The modified sentence above (sans 'previously'), would probably suffice. Now suppose she had seen Goldstein in the first period. How do you suggest she could articulate that, so as to be unambiguous, and for the sake of the reporter capturing her words faithfully, concise?
          Hi Andrew,

          I have to say that I simply read Mortimer's statement to mean that she had seen him previous to her going out. With regard to your later question:
          "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. I had seen him earlier on his way up the street towards Commercial Road".

          Cheers, George
          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

          Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Andrew,

            I have to say that I simply read Mortimer's statement to mean that she had seen him previous to her going out.
            Okay, so which of these is true ...?

            * FM use of these word 'previously', was redundant, and the reporter may as well have left it out of the quote

            * FM's meaning would be ambiguous, if she had not used the word 'previously', in that sentence

            With regard to your later question:
            "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. I had seen him earlier on his way up the street towards Commercial Road".

            Cheers, George
            This only works if Mrs. Artisan is assumed to be a different woman to FM, because Mrs. A says ...

            I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

            Obviously if Fanny had said that, it could not refer to something that occurred earlier than previously.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • #66
              Mrs. Artisan: I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand.

              But where was he going?

              The Star, Oct 2: The police are well satisfied that the murderer, having finished the mutilation of the body in Mitre-square, heard footsteps approaching, and had to make an exit before he could remove any of the personal evidences of his crime. He tore a piece off his victim's apron, wiped his hands and his knife on it as he went along, and dropped the bloodstained rag when he was sure he would not be observed. That he did this in Goldstein-street does not occasion any surprise.

              I see!
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #67
                A few years back I was a spectator at a local event that my brother participated in. After his bit of the 'show' (he had his chest shaved for a cancer appeal), we were talking together when a young woman approached us and started asking my brother questions. I was a little curious at how specific her questions were, especially given that some of them were a bit personal, and that she so was so interested to be asking them at all. Lo and behold, some of my brother's comments appeared, almost word-for-word accurate as far as I could remember, in the following day's edition of the local paper. The woman was, of course, a journalist. Neither of us picked up on that at the time, though.

                Evening News, Oct 1:

                Some three doors from the gateway where the body of the first victim was discovered, I saw a clean, respectable-looking woman chatting with one or two neighbours. She was apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan, and formed a strong contrast to many of those around her. I got into conversation with her and found that she was one of the first on the spot.

                Did this journalist make it clear to the woman - presumably Fanny Mortimer - that he was a journalist? Did she suppose that the man was just another local, like the one or two neighbours mentioned? Did the journalist deliberately not ask for the woman's name, nor ask anything about the timing of events, so as to not give the 'game' away?

                The most important question of all is; was Fanny reluctant to make it clear to the press, exactly what she had seen, or at least to state so in an unambiguous manner, but when speaking with people she believed to non-press, was happy enough to 'spill the beans'?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  some dude seen walking down the street by a worthless witness around the time of the murder. thats about as close as we need to get with him.
                  I agree Abby but still a better suspect than some. However it's quite annoying how many pointless suspects are pushed by some.

                  Cheers John

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                    I agree Abby but still a better suspect than some. However it's quite annoying how many pointless suspects are pushed by some.

                    Cheers John
                    John,
                    would you mind defining what a worthless witness is? Is that a policing or legal category?

                    Would you also mind defining what a pointless suspect is? I don't quite understand how a suspect can be regarded as pointless, but also better than some.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      John,
                      would you mind defining what a worthless witness is? Is that a policing or legal category?

                      Would you also mind defining what a pointless suspect is? I don't quite understand how a suspect can be regarded as pointless, but also better than some.
                      I didn't mention worthless witness perhaps you should ask Abby about that. A pointless suspect to my mind is a suspect whose chances of being the Ripper are so remote it's not worth looking at them in detail.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                        I didn't mention worthless witness perhaps you should ask Abby about that. A pointless suspect to my mind is a suspect whose chances of being the Ripper are so remote it's not worth looking at them in detail.
                        You said you agreed with Abby. If Mortimer is a worthless witness, then Goldstein must be a pointless suspect, because the case against him is down to her alone. You also said that Goldstein is a better suspect than some. Indeed he is and he should be on suspect lists. Robert Anderson tells us that the identity of the Ripper was known to Scotland Yard. Walter Dew gives us a very strong clue as to who Anderson was referring to. The surviving evidence helps to explain Due's reason for supposing that black bag man was the Ripper. Leon Goldstein is very definitely worth a closer look.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          You said you agreed with Abby. If Mortimer is a worthless witness, then Goldstein must be a pointless suspect, because the case against him is down to her alone. You also said that Goldstein is a better suspect than some. Indeed he is and he should be on suspect lists. Robert Anderson tells us that the identity of the Ripper was known to Scotland Yard. Walter Dew gives us a very strong clue as to who Anderson was referring to. The surviving evidence helps to explain Due's reason for supposing that black bag man was the Ripper. Leon Goldstein is very definitely worth a closer look.
                          It's just your opinion that Leon Goldstein should be on the suspect list. If the Ripper was indeed known to Scotland Yard wouldnt they announce who it was? Leon Goldstein is in my opinion not worth a closer look.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                            A pointless suspect to my mind is a suspect whose chances of being the Ripper are so remote it's not worth looking at them in detail.
                            Hi John,

                            While I agree with your definition in broad terms, I am not at all sure that it applies to Goldstein.

                            Goldstein was an office holder at the Club (Treasurer, I think) so there is a good chance he was in the Club that night. There are press reports that state he was seen headed north up Berner St, and another that he was seen headed south down Berner St. He came forward with an alibi placing him at the Spectacle Coffee house, which police checked, but they had no way of checking on the time before and after, so whatever suspicions they may have had there was no evidence to proceed any further. However, he can be definitely placed in the immediate vicinity of a C5 murder at around the time of the occurrence of that murder.

                            How many of the popular, or your preferred, suspects fall into that category? This alone qualifies Goldstein for a closer look.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              Perhaps George, the problem with taking a closer look at Leon Goldstein, is the fear that it might become supposed that this case was solved in the 19th century. Many people do not want this case to be solved, ever. Some of them even admit this.

                              What I find interesting is how Walter Dew came to make the comments he did. Especially this:

                              Not a single suspicious sound was heard by any of the men inside the building, but it is more than probable that a woman living in one of the cottages on the other side of the court was the only person ever to see the Ripper in the vicinity of one of his crimes. This woman was a Mrs. Mortimer.

                              Note the wording; it is more than probable that Mrs. Mortimer was the only person to ever see the Ripper at one of his crime scenes.

                              Dew seems to be absolutely adamant that black bag man was JtR, and so to anyone who thinks that Goldstein is not worth a closer look, I just have one question; where's your head at?

                              Other than the obvious, what is interesting about Dew's comments is his naming of Mortimer, and his non-naming of Goldstein. The Evening News report does not name the witness. The Morning Advertiser report of Goldstein's visit to Leman street station with Wess, does give his name. Neither report says anything about the man's dress or appearance, yet Dew says:

                              A man, whom she judged to be about thirty, dressed in black, and carrying a small, shiny black bag, hurried furtively along the opposite side of the court.

                              It seems Dew's comments on Berner street were not a matter of referring to his personal cache of contemporary newspaper reports. Instead, he seems to have had access to evidence that is now lost.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Perhaps George, the problem with taking a closer look at Leon Goldstein, is the fear that it might become supposed that this case was solved in the 19th century. Many people do not want this case to be solved, ever. Some of them even admit this.

                                What I find interesting is how Walter Dew came to make the comments he did. Especially this:

                                Not a single suspicious sound was heard by any of the men inside the building, but it is more than probable that a woman living in one of the cottages on the other side of the court was the only person ever to see the Ripper in the vicinity of one of his crimes. This woman was a Mrs. Mortimer.

                                Note the wording; it is more than probable that Mrs. Mortimer was the only person to ever see the Ripper at one of his crime scenes.

                                Dew seems to be absolutely adamant that black bag man was JtR, and so to anyone who thinks that Goldstein is not worth a closer look, I just have one question; where's your head at?

                                Other than the obvious, what is interesting about Dew's comments is his naming of Mortimer, and his non-naming of Goldstein. The Evening News report does not name the witness. The Morning Advertiser report of Goldstein's visit to Leman street station with Wess, does give his name. Neither report says anything about the man's dress or appearance, yet Dew says:

                                A man, whom she judged to be about thirty, dressed in black, and carrying a small, shiny black bag, hurried furtively along the opposite side of the court.

                                It seems Dew's comments on Berner street were not a matter of referring to his personal cache of contemporary newspaper reports. Instead, he seems to have had access to evidence that is now lost.

                                It is widely accepted that Goldstein came forward to identify himself as the man seen at 1am or thereabouts by Mrs Mortimer. The Police then eliminated him from their enquiries. Dew was writing 50 years after the event. Most likely from what he had compiled the man described by Mortimer seemed a certain fit. He didn't have access to the Police files we have now. It's that simple.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X