Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finding Israel Schwartz

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi All,

    Israel Schwartz.

    How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

    Regards,

    Simon
    Interesting question. I suspect the phrase conjures up different things to different people. This is my take, for what it's worth:

    To me it suggests he had the appearance of an actor - OTT gestures. Slightly artificially flamboyance. Looking a little out of place in the area. Like a younger version of Len Goodman perhaps? I think an encounter with someone like Julian Clary (or perhaps even the late David Bowie) would leave me with the impression that I had met someone in "the theatrical line".
    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

    Comment


    • #17
      It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.

      On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?
      Last edited by Bridewell; 05-30-2017, 03:25 PM.
      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

      Comment


      • #18
        It's not that an uncorroborated statement is safely dismissed as not having taken place at all,the statement could in fact be true,depending on the witness could in fact be taken as more true than not beforehand.But in order to have some finality the person and the statement must be checked.What, for example, if the witness and the accused had some differences before? That's why there's is cross-examination,otherwise innocent people could be hanged,lives are at stake.There are liars out there you know.
        Last edited by Varqm; 05-30-2017, 06:13 PM.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • #19
          Israel Schwartz and Pipeman were more likely just passersby who did not want to get involved in the couple.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • #20
            Yes I agree with you Varqm.
            However I always thought that pipeman might have been a policeman working undercover. They must have watched such places. Have you any thoughts on who Israel was?
            Its strange that witnesses are sometimes hard to find. I wonder if they did alter their names? I am sure I would be worried that Jack might come looking for me if I was a witness...

            Pat......

            Comment


            • #21
              On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?
              Bridewell
              They do say the last one to see the victim is high on the list. We are told Hutch had been to Romford and he knew Mary an other bits of info. We also know Lechmere was going to work, where he worked, the route etc. I dont think one can suspect Schwartz just yet as we know nothing about him at all. Once we know a bit I am sure he will join the others as suspects. Who knows maybe he was Jack ?

              Pat.....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.

                On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?
                Normally I would agree and would say he should also be at least a person of interest. But his suspect matches the other witnesses suspect descriptions, and specifically the peaked cap.
                "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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                  It is often remarked that the Schwartz account is uncorroborated - sometimes implying that an incident which is seen by only one person can be safely dismissed as not having taken place at all.

                  On another point, Schwartz is the only person who describes himself as witnessing an assault on a woman who is then found dead shortly afterwards - he also describes himself as being chased from the scene of that attack. I don't want to put ideas into anybody's head but it does seem (to me) odd that Lechmere, who reports the Nichols find to a police constable, is converted from witness to suspect, and that Hutchinson suffers the same fate for not coming forward straightaway but then giving a detailed description. Why them but not him? Why is the one man who we know (from his own account) ran from the scene of a Ripper murder, not subject of the same level of suspicion?
                  Maybe because in his account the soon to be deceased was actually being assaulted minutes before her throat was cut..once. Neither of the other 2 mentioned that they saw anything like an assault.

                  Serious suspicions about Lechmeres possible guilt are held almost exclusively by a single poster here.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                    Hi All,

                    Israel Schwartz.

                    How must a person be dressed in order to have the "appearance of being in the theatrical line"? [Star, 1st October 1888].

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    My guess would be, for the period, somewhat loudly Simon. Mismatched patterns, dramatic moustache, that kind of thing. Attention seeking.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Maybe he was a Gypsy they went in for quite strange frock type things He He !
                      Maybe Jack was shouting Gypsy not Lipsky ?? (only joking)

                      Pat
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                        Maybe he was a Gypsy they went in for quite strange frock type things He He !
                        Maybe Jack was shouting Gypsy not Lipsky ?? (only joking)

                        Pat
                        Brilliant!
                        and cool pic
                        "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


                        • #27
                          I imagine the trouble was that, just as Liz and BS were having their bust-up, Schwarz came along and rather tactlessly serenaded them with his gypsy violin.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Alexander Aaronson

                            I received Alexanders' birth certificate that I had been waiting for and it gave the address of 45 Boyd street.
                            So I still dont know when they moved from Boyd street to Ellen street, only that it was between 1886 and 1890. So frustrating but still possible. I now have to try and see who moved into Boyd street.
                            If anyone can come up with any ideas ? I have tried the electoral registers.

                            Pat........

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Pat
                              It looks like this family were at 45 Boyd St in 1888. I think it's probably the same father in both admissions despite the surname difference:

                              Name Date of Birth
                              Date Admitted
                              Number
                              Last School Parent or Guardian Address Date Left
                              Reason Left Notes

                              Deborah 09-1879
                              05-03-1888
                              13795
                              Simon SHEROTSKY 45 Boyd St 06-1891

                              Jews' Free School London

                              Betsy 06-04-1869
                              16-10-1876


                              Simon KARETSKY 45 Boyd St 02-1888

                              Jews' Free School London

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Thank you very much Debra,

                                So if they started school in 2-88 that means February right ? That narrows it down quite a bit.
                                So it is possible the Aaronsons had moved to Ellen Street between October 1886 and February 1888. Also possibly living at 22 Ellen Street after feb 1888
                                I seem to remember thinking no 22 Ellen Street was Israels wifes familys address is that right do you know?
                                I found a John McDuell at 22 Ellen street in the St George in the East 1887 Electoral roll but I am not sure if he would be a lodger or owner?

                                Pat.........

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X