Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at Leon Goldstein

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

  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

      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 ?
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • 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?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post
          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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            So who did BSman call out ''Lipski'' to..... if not Schwartz ?
            Schwartz thought it was Pipeman.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              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 .
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  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 ?
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • 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
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • 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 ?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post

                            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...0/pg-201-1.jpg

                            Cigarette boxes also?

                            M.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                              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...0/pg-201-1.jpg

                              Cigarette boxes also?

                              M.
                              i had a closer look at leon goldstein. nope not the ripper.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                i had a closer look at leon goldstein. nope not the ripper.
                                A fair conclusion.
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X