Finding Israel Schwartz

[Paddy]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Paddy]

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.....

[Paddy]

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......

[Varqm]

Israel Schwartz and Pipeman were more likely just passersby who did not want to get involved in the couple.

[Varqm]

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.

[Bridewell]

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?

[Bridewell]

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".

[Paddy]

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

Maybe it was just a cultural difference Simon, someone maybe who had over exaggerated speech and mannerisms (not common to the british).

Or could they have meant somebody who appeared gay? Or the clothing?
Hard to say.
What were London theatrical men like back then I wonder?

Pat.......

[Robert]

Flamboyantly, I suppose, but I don't think we're talking Quentin Crisp here.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Robert]

Hi Pat

Yes sorry, you are right, it's Samuel who's the Ellen St guy.

It's very complicated.

We have Adolph Aarons and Samuel Aaronson. And we have 'Alexander Aarnson' (Aaronson) born Q4 1886 St G in E, and Alexander Aarons born Q4 87 Whitechapel.

In 1891 Adolph is at 54 Hanbury St and he has a son Alexander who is 3. Meanwhile Samuel is at 22 Ellen St with a son Alec who's 5.

In 1901, Adolph is still at same address with a son Alec who's 13. Samuel is still at same address with a son Alexander who's 14.

I love the way the Alecs and Alexanders change forenames with each other.

In 1911 Adolph has signed his Queen St census form but his name on the list is crossed out (I think he was in hospital). Freda is there with Alec aged 22. Meanwhile Samuel seems to have vanished but his son Alec is with his wife at 34 Kabella (?) St, Bethnal Green.

Both Alecs/Alexanders are in the 39 register.

[Paddy]

Hi Bridewell
I agree....this is why I am wondering if the Aarensons who lived at 22 Ellen street in 1890 till at least 1901 could be his family. Samuel (the dad) came from a town in Galicia that he called Schwoskin that I think was under Austro-Hungarian rule and had Hungarians living there.

Hopefully the birth cert address of Alexander will help.

Robert,
Alexander Aaronsons school record is on Ancestry 1890 entry to Berner Street school. The girls are not on there....

Pat.....