A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It's interesting to compare PC Smith's description of the man he saw with Stride, to that of Dew's description of the man Fanny Mortimer saw.

Smith: I noticed he had a newspaper parcel in his hand. It was about 18in. in length and 6in. or 8in. in width. He was about 5ft. 7in. as near as I could say. He had on a hard felt deerstalker hat of dark colour and dark clothes.
Baxter: What kind of coat was it?
Smith: An overcoat. He wore dark trousers.
...
Baxter: Can you form any idea as to his age?
Smith: About 28 years.

Dew: Just as she was about to re-enter her cottage the woman heard the approach of a pony and cart. She knew this would be Lewis Dienschitz, the steward of the club. He went every Saturday to the market, returning about this hour of the early morning.
At the same moment Mrs. Mortimer observed something else, silent and sinister. 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.

Where did Dew get the information regarding the man's age and dress, if not from Mortimer's police statement?
Joseph Lawende also supposed the man he saw to be about 30.
By the way, both Goldstein and Lawende were commercial travellers.

Now let's consider the timing of Goldstein's trip to Leman street station. Morning Advertiser, Oct 3:

W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

Mortimer's reference to the man with a black, shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road, appeared in the Monday morning papers.
Why was Wess persuading Goldstein at around 10pm on the Tuesday, to accompany him to the station?
Was it because Wess had only just discovered Mortimer's Evening News interview?
If that had nothing to do with it, why wait until then? Why even bother going to the police to say that Goldstein was the man who innocuously walked down Berner street carrying his work bag?
Now we get to a critical question; when Wess and Goldstein arrived at Leman street, was the duty officer aware of the Evening News interview?
It is at this point that we can see how Leon Goldstein might have slipped through the net.

[drstrange169]

Do you think Dew was actually there or do you think he was conflating various stories for the purpose of making his bio more interesting?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do you think Dew was actually there or do you think he was conflating various stories for the purpose of making his bio more interesting?

Dew made no reference to PC Smith, and his readers had no access to the Casebook press reports, so I'm not sure what various conflated stories refers to.

[Scott Nelson]

Contemporary news reports that Dew had compiled.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just read through this thread quickly. It’s an interesting spot by NBFN. Do we have Mortimer actually saying that Goldstein walked past her or did she only mention his direction of travel?

If we don’t have her saying specifically that he walked past her then could it have been that she stood on her doorstep, at whatever time, and looked to her right. She saw a man (Goldstein) walking in the direction of Fairclough Street and at the moment that she first saw him he was roughly adjacent to the club when he crossed over the road near to head to Christian Street. So he was heading in the direction that we know he would have been heading but because she first saw him when he was very close to the club she said that he ‘might’ halve come from there.

Just a suggestion.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>No, for two reasons. Firstly, it didn't need it to be explained to me. I had read the relevant evidence before I started the thread. It was I who quoted Swanson mentioning Spectacle Alley, in relation to Goldstein. That was not some revelation to me.<<

You might want to read the Goldstein thread again. Mention of Spectacle Alley in any of your posts and reasoning is absent until I pointed it out to you in post #7.

What is your point? My initial post was long enough, with plenty enough quoting to get the ball rolling.
That Spectacle Alley was the location Goldstein had come from before turning down Berner street, is not the central issue - which is, on how many occasions did Fanny Mortimer witness Goldstein in the half hour or so leading up to the murder, and where was he moving to and from, at the time?
You seem to be attempting to make out that I have denied or still deny Goldstein had been at the Spectacle Alley coffee house, but why would I do that? I need Goldstein to have walked down Berner street, to make my argument coherent.
As mentioned, it was I who quoted Swanson re Goldstein, and I did not achieve that by copy & paste, having failed to find the relevant passage on Casebook. Consequently I took the trouble to retype the text from the JtR Sourcebook.

>>Secondly, my argument that Mortimer had seen Goldstein twice... So it is you who is being more than a little ingenuous.<<

In which case you will have no trouble pointing out the exact quote where Mortimer says she saw Goldstein twice ... yes?

I thought not.

Don't give up so easily dusty! It's a little more complex than just presenting a single quote. We have to look at everything Mortimer says, and use a bit of intelligence to work out what happened. So here we go ...

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.

So Fanny was at her doorstep on more than one occasion, in the period 12:30-1:00.
Now we listen to her speaking about being in the yard, subsequent to being on her doorstep on the final occasion ..

A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

Now we come to Fanny's critical doorstep observation ...

It was just 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 round the corner by the Board School.

So let's be clear about this. Fanny does not say ...

... the only man whom I had seen in the street ...

Nor does she say ...

... the only man whom I had seen in the street previously ...

Nor does she say ...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street ...

She does say ...

... the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously ...

So the criteria is twofold. One: the man passes through the street. Two: he did so previously.

One reason this is important to spell this out, is that it implies that Fanny may well have seen other men, such as Eagle and Lave, but they did not fit the criteria. So we are obliged to ask; why was that Fanny's criteria? Why not refer instead to the only man who wandered out onto the street briefly, as Lave did? Well, did she imply she saw other men? Evening News:

"Was the street quiet at the time?"

"Yes, there was hardly anybody moving about, except at the club."

Yes she did. So why did she choose the above criteria? Was it arbitrary, or was there something special about Goldstein? Why did Fanny not simply say ...

... the only man whom I had seen 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 round the corner by the Board School.

So we need a complete handle on the two criteria. The first is clear, the second requires an understanding of the context of the word 'previously'.
That is given by ...

... the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates.

The context is on her doorstep, not after locking up. If it were the later, then the word 'previously' would be redundant, and to be consistent, she might have said ...

There was certainly no noise made, and I did not previously observe anyone enter the gates.

She did not say that, because for Fanny, that was not the previous period she subsequently refers to.

So it becomes clear after a little analysis, that by 'previously' Fanny is referring to a prior period on her doorstep.
We can now make sense of the Evening News interview, which without this interpretation of 'previously' cannot be properly understood.

"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."

"Did you observe him closely, or notice anything in his appearance?"

"No, I didn't pay particular attention to him. He was respectably dressed, but was a stranger to me. He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club., A good many young men goes there, of a Saturday night especially."

From Fanny's doorstep point of view, Commercial Road was to her left, and the board school was on the opposite side of the street.
From Fanny's doorstep point of view, the Socialist Club was to her right, and on her side of the street.
Fanny Mortimer followed the convention of regarding Commercial Road as the top of Berner street, and thus walking from that direction means walking down the street, and in the opposite direction means walking up the street.
Fanny Mortimer saw Leon Goldstein, twice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then we would have to ask why this isn’t mentioned anywhere by anyone? Goldstein would have been someone that the police would have been keen to speak to and to find information on. Is it likely that Fanny Mortimer wouldn’t have specifically mentioned seeing that mystery man previously? Why was he walking past the scene of a murder twice? The fact that no one mentions Goldstein passing twice (Fanny or the Police) is surely the strongest evidence that he didn’t?

I asked previously if Mortimer said that Goldstein actually passed her on Berner Street as she was on her doorstep or did she just mention the direction in which he was walking and we’ve assumed that he passed her? It would appear so because how could she have being saying first, that he passed her walking from the direction of Commercial Road and then second, that he might have come from the club? Why would she make such an obviously conflicting statement?

This is why I asked if it was possible that when FM went onto her doorstep she looked to her right and saw Goldstein who was somewhere adjacent to the club (after already passing her door) before he crossed the road toward the Board School? This might explain her describing the direction that Goldstein was walking (south) and why she speculated that it was possible that he’d just come from the club?

[MrBarnett]

Does anyone believe that Fanny’s statements were reported verbatim?

[MrBarnett]

There is another Goldstein mystery in relation to Berner Street. There is evidence to suggest that an Israel Goldstein was the caretaker of the club. Why do we hear nothing about him?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Then we would have to ask why this isn’t mentioned anywhere by anyone?

I take it you mean; other than in i Caught Crippen

The second last sentence of #31: Now we get to a critical question; when Wess and Goldstein arrived at Leman street, was the duty officer aware of the Evening News interview?

Perhaps that had something to do with it.

Goldstein would have been someone that the police would have been keen to speak to and to find information on. Is it likely that Fanny Mortimer wouldn’t have specifically mentioned seeing that mystery man previously? Why was he walking past the scene of a murder twice? The fact that no one mentions Goldstein passing twice (Fanny or the Police) is surely the strongest evidence that he didn’t?

As you can see from #24, the Home Office had questions. Did they ever get any answers?

I asked previously if Mortimer said that Goldstein actually passed her on Berner Street as she was on her doorstep or did she just mention the direction in which he was walking and we’ve assumed that he passed her? It would appear so because how could she have being saying first, that he passed her walking from the direction of Commercial Road and then second, that he might have come from the club? Why would she make such an obviously conflicting statement?

A very obvious question. Yet there is no conflict, if she sees him twice. She remembered him, even though she didn't recognise him. Why single him out, if there were other people in the street at different points (Eagle, Lave, board school couple, etc)? Why didn't she say, for example ...

The only man I had seen with a woman previously, was a young man standing by the board school corner, talking with his sweetheart.

Surely a man with a woman is of more interest than a man with a black bag. So why has she focused on Goldstein?

This is why I asked if it was possible that when FM went onto her doorstep she looked to her right and saw Goldstein who was somewhere adjacent to the club (after already passing her door) before he crossed the road toward the Board School? This might explain her describing the direction that Goldstein was walking (south) and why she speculated that it was possible that he’d just come from the club?

That doesn't gel with the report in the Morning Advertiser ...

W. Wess, secretary of the International Club, Berner-street, called at our office at midnight, and stated that, it having come to his knowledge that the man who was seen by Mrs. Mortimer, of 36, Berner-street, passing her house with a black, shiny bag, and walking very fast down the street from the Commercial-road at about the time of the murder, was a member of the club, he persuaded him last night, between ten and eleven o'clock, to accompany him to the Leman-street station, where he made a statement as to his whereabouts on Saturday evening, which was entirely satisfactory. The young man's name is Leon Goldstein, and he is a traveller.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What was in Goldstein's bag?

What was amongst Kate's possessions?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s obviously an error of communication somewhere in all of this. If she said that he passed her house coming from Commercial Road then she couldn’t have said that he might have come from the club. It’s impossible. The fact that she didn’t mention seeing him twice nor did the police and it would certainly have been important enough to have mentioned shows that she very obviously didn’t see him twice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What was in Goldstein's bag?

What was amongst Kate's possessions?

Not cigarette boxes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There’s obviously an error of communication somewhere in all of this.

As already suggested, that 'error' probably occurred at Leman street.
When Wess dragged Goldstein's arse to the station, he gave them the original, Commercial Road to board school corner sighting.
He also seems to have said that that occurred at about the time of the murder. So incredibly, the understanding of the approximate timing of the event, does not come from the corroborated witness herself, but rather from the interpreter who had to persuade Goldstein to go to the police to clear his name! How's that for a neutral opinion?

If she said that he passed her house coming from Commercial Road then she couldn’t have said that he might have come from the club. It’s impossible.

Unless she saw him twice. Then it makes perfect sense. Otherwise, her Evening News interview just looks like gibberish.
Our job as investigators is to make sense of the data, not sweep unwanted data under the carpet.
Fanny Mortimer is a corroborated witness. Are we going to take her seriously?
More to the point, late on the Tuesday evening, Wess decided to take her very seriously indeed. Why?

The fact that she didn’t mention seeing him twice nor did the police and it would certainly have been important enough to have mentioned shows that she very obviously didn’t see him twice.

You're making a crucial error. What do you mean by 'him'?
Do you mean the unrecognised man with a shiny black bag, or do you mean Leon Goldstein, member of the club?
Fanny may well have told the police about the former, but at that point he had not been identified.
When Goldstein and Wess went to the police, he was explained to be the man who was seen walking down from Commercial Road, as opposed to the man seen walking in the opposite direction, in the vicinity of the club. The duty inspector may well have only been aware of the first description, and as that did not amount to suspicious behaviour, he accepted the story. Goldstein and Wess leave happy and relieved.
From that point on, people like Swanson knew the black bag man's name, and believed he had only made one trip along Berner street, leading up to the murder.
Can you now see how Goldstein was able to slip through the cracks?

[drstrange169]

>> What is your point? <<

My point, is that you seem to be wasting everybody's time.

After all it was you who wrote,

"I'm pretty sure Fanny was in the pocket of the club."
Post #126,A Whip and a Prod thread