Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Schwartz Lied ...

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

  • If I'd have just opened my eyes the other day, I posted a clip from this map, but completely missed that detail at the far left end of Ellen Street.




    The detail appears to be an overhead walkway for three floors - 3rd, 4th & 5th floors, across Backchurch Lane.
    It's not exactly a railway arch, but it represents a crossing over the road just the same.



    Interesting.

    Now, to look into your other question....
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • The 1891 census lists houses from No.8 to 32 as replaced by railway arches & coal depot.
      So, was there a house 22 in Back church Lane in 1888, we can't say for sure but it looks like those structures have been there some time. So, as a guess I would say no.
      The map I just posted with that walkway over Backchurch Lane from the west end of Ellen street is dated 1899, so was that walkway there in 1888?

      The map for the west side of Backchurch Lane from Ellen street south (Vol. V, sheet 123) is missing.
      On the east side we have even numbers, the last number on Backchurch Lane on the east side before Ellen street is 66, however on that 1899 map there are no houses on the east side south of Ellen street.




      Below, is the bottom end of Backchurch Lane, where it meets Cable street.
      The date is 1890.



      Those houses at the bottom, three on each side would be numbered:
      5 6
      3 4
      1 2

      Which is consistent with the census saying that houses No.8 - 32 (inclusive) do not exist on the east side.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        It was common, even back in the 1950's or 60's for an address to consist of two streets. It's like telling someone which leaf to pick, you identify which twig, which branch, which trunk.
        Commercial street is the nearest main road - the Trunk.
        Backchurch Lane is the next nearest size road - the Branch.
        Ellen street is the Twig.
        22 the house.

        The address where I grew up was 19 Guycroft, Westgate, Otley.
        In this case Westgate was the main Trunk, Guycroft the branch, houses from 15-20 were a Twig (no street name), number 19 being the house.

        I think this process has fallen out of fashion in the computer world, but the Backchurch Lane address in this case means 22 Ellen street, we don't have his Berner street address.
        I understand the naming of the streets. Addresses in Backchurch Lane seem to have ', Commercial Road' appended - a trunk appended to a branch, to use your terms. So can you find another example of 'xx Ellen street, Backchurch Lane'? Or was Ellen street not regarded as being a twig of Backchurch Lane?

        Anyway, the question was what street did the interview actually take place on.

        Newspapers went to press overnight, any stories in the morning papers were compiled the night before.
        You can take that to the bank.
        I thought the Star was an evening paper?

        Could be, yes.
        Even if the interview did occur Sunday night, and pretty much immediately after Schwartz had been with Abberline, the Star still needs to go to the police to find out this...

        The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

        So the question is, was that the order of events, or the reverse? If it were street interview followed by obtaining information from the police the next day, then why had the story changed so much in such a short period of time? Contrast the behaviour of Knifeman, to this story...

        The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

        Was it Pipeman who took no notice of it? If yes, then he did not flee from the scene, nor did he pursue Schwartz. So in that case, Schwartz' chased away story is more than an exaggeration - it's a total fabrication. If no, then who is the other witness, and where were they at the time?

        It would seem the press interview took place at 22 Ellen street.
        He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them.

        If it really happened there, then...

        A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Ellen-street.

        I think it were actually Schwartz who ran the Star man to earth, at his office. Both parties agreed to omit this detail from the report, as a condition of the interview. It would then, be no surprise that the Star editorial writer was so sceptical of the Hungarian's story.
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
          It's possible it was Schwartz interpreter friend who tipped off the Star. It's also possible that Schwartz may have just been stopping at an address in Backchurch Ln temporary while all the T's were crossed say, for his new address at 22 Ellen st. It is also possible that Backchurch ln may have been the address of his interpreter friend and the reporter just assumed Schwartz lived there.
          Regards Darryl
          What was the motivation for going to the press? Did they want to beat Pipeman to the punch? Clearly it was not done for notoriety - the Hungarian's name is not given. This was probably an agreement of the interview - would the Star take seriously someone who refused to give them their name? By honouring the agreement, the Star man possibly had a follow up interview in mind. Yet it was not to be...

          In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

          Although the Star does give a clue as to who one of the arrests might have been...

          If every man should be arrested who was known to have been seen in company with an abandoned woman in that locality on last Saturday night, the police-stations would not hold them.

          Who was known to be in the company of Stride, in that locality on the night? Who was the other source that the Star refers to? Was it William Marshall? If yes, then what are the chances that Rather Stout Man was Broad Shouldered Man?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • The 1873 map shows there were 31 addresses between Cable St. in the south up to Ellen St. on the east side. So a number 22 Backchurch Lane existed in 1873.

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • The post office directory for 1882 shows only businesses, but clearly the houses from 8 to 32 had not been removed yet.

              This list reads downwards, but it should be applied upwards. No.2 is at the bottom by Cable street on a map.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • 22 Doveton Street
                22 Mulberry Street
                22 Ellen Street
                22 Backchurch Lane
                22 Christian Street
                22 Batty Street
                22 Samuel Street
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • The only map I can lay my hands on dated 1888, is that by G.W. Bacon



                  We see Pichin st. and all renovations down to Cable st. just as detailed out on an 1894 map.
                  So, it is pretty safe to say a No.22 Backchurch Lane did not exist in 1888.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    I understand the naming of the streets. Addresses in Backchurch Lane seem to have ', Commercial Road' appended - a trunk appended to a branch, to use your terms. So can you find another example of 'xx Ellen street, Backchurch Lane'? Or was Ellen street not regarded as being a twig of Backchurch Lane?
                    Yes, they basically used the 'Tree' system as there was no postal code in 1888. Todays postal code replaced the Tree system.
                    Postal codes are relatively new, they were gradually adopted nationwide between about 1960 - 1975.
                    So, I remember the time when we might write two or three streets in one address.

                    Anyway, the question was what street did the interview actually take place on.
                    22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane. His current/new address.


                    I thought the Star was an evening paper?
                    I'm sorry, I had the morning papers in mind for some reason.

                    Yes, Schwartz went to the police late on Sunday, so a Star reporter had lots of time before the Monday evening edition would hit the streets. We can't know if Schwartz was interviewed by the Star later on Sunday, or sometime Monday morning.



                    Even if the interview did occur Sunday night, and pretty much immediately after Schwartz had been with Abberline, the Star still needs to go to the police to find out this...

                    The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

                    The truth of the prisoner's statement is not wholly accepted, yes the police seem to have been quick to respond to Schwartz's story.

                    So the question is, was that the order of events, or the reverse? If it were street interview followed by obtaining information from the police the next day, then why had the story changed so much in such a short period of time? Contrast the behaviour of Knifeman, to this story...

                    The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

                    Was it Pipeman who took no notice of it? If yes, then he did not flee from the scene, nor did he pursue Schwartz. So in that case, Schwartz' chased away story is more than an exaggeration - it's a total fabrication. If no, then who is the other witness, and where were they at the time?
                    Yes, that last quote was from the Echo, 1st Oct., but I had the same question - was this another witness we know nothing about?


                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      ...

                      The detail appears to be an overhead walkway for three floors - 3rd, 4th & 5th floors, across Backchurch Lane.
                      It's not exactly a railway arch, but it represents a crossing over the road just the same.

                      ...
                      Hi Wickerman,

                      That is a nice observation. Given the use of a translator as well as all of the other complications associated with wording in these types of press stories, one I think offers a very plausible solution to the odd railway arch detail.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • A map dated 1894 shows 17 houses on the east side running down from Ellen street.
                        If there had been a No.22 it would have been about 6 further down, but replaced by Pinchin st. which already existed in 1888. Hence, no such address as 22 Backchurch Lane in 1888.

                        Last edited by Wickerman; 06-09-2021, 02:55 AM.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Hi Wickerman,

                          That is a nice observation. Given the use of a translator as well as all of the other complications associated with wording in these types of press stories, one I think offers a very plausible solution to the odd railway arch detail.

                          - Jeff
                          Thanks Jeff, but no cigar I fear.
                          The timing is wrong.
                          The map I posted above, plus the post office directory prove there were houses on the east side of Backchurch Lane in 1888, not a multifloored wharehouse.
                          The map with the walkway is 1899.
                          Back to the drawing board....
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Yes, they basically used the 'Tree' system as there was no postal code in 1888. Todays postal code replaced the Tree system.
                            Postal codes are relatively new, they were gradually adopted nationwide between about 1960 - 1975.
                            So, I remember the time when we might write two or three streets in one address.


                            22 Ellen street, Backchurch Lane. His current/new address.
                            The tree system - I get it. Though this is not enough to explain why the reporter referred to the branch and not the twig. Also, he did not refer to the man having moved from 'Berner-street, Commercial-road'. It was just Berner-street, apparently orphaned.

                            I'm sorry, I had the morning papers in mind for some reason.

                            Yes, Schwartz went to the police late on Sunday, so a Star reporter had lots of time before the Monday evening edition would hit the streets. We can't know if Schwartz was interviewed by the Star later on Sunday, or sometime Monday morning.
                            The bit about the theatrical trade might be a clue. Abberline only said Schwartz had a strong Jewish appearance. Did Schwartz change his appearance before speaking with the Star man?
                            Another very important question; how much of Schwartz' police account did the Star learn of? I think it could have been quite a bit, and information was probably shared both ways. The Star possibly knew the two accounts differed in important ways, yet gave the following assurances in their report.

                            ...the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

                            The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand...


                            The truth of the prisoner's statement is not wholly accepted, yes the police seem to have been quick to respond to Schwartz's story.
                            Presumably Schwartz gave a detailed enough description of the second man, that they were able to identify and arrest him quite quickly. So what's going on here...?

                            The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red.

                            Perhaps the police knew of a local man with a red moustache, who was known to walk the streets smoking a pipe. Whatever the case, it seems Schwartz gave the cops some pretty big hints.

                            Yes, that last quote was from the Echo, 1st Oct., but I had the same question - was this another witness we know nothing about?
                            It's a bit odd that Marshall saw the couple standing in front of #58 Berner for 10 minutes, but no one else seems to have spotted them there. Or maybe they did? Alternatively, was the other witness someone like James Brown? They arrest the young man who stood at the board school corner. His sweetheart supports his story, and he is released. If true, where did Stride and parcel man go?
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Yes, they basically used the 'Tree' system as there was no postal code in 1888. Todays postal code replaced the Tree system.
                              Postal codes are relatively new, they were gradually adopted nationwide between about 1960 - 1975.
                              So, I remember the time when we might write two or three streets in one address.
                              As a Postie of many years standing this is indeed true. Over the years on handwritten letters you do not see it as much but still now and again up to the present day.
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                A map dated 1894 shows 17 houses on the east side running down from Ellen street.
                                If there had been a No.22 it would have been about 6 further down, but replaced by Pinchin st. which already existed in 1888. Hence, no such address as 22 Backchurch Lane in 1888.

                                I covered this back in Post 665, etc. The houses were demolished in the late 1880s.

                                This was relevant, because Gavin Bromley thought Schwartz may have been connected to No. 22 Back Church Lane because a rape victim named Sarah Schwartz briefly lived at No. 22 Back Church Lane in 1885, but I researched it and it was long gone by 1888. Further, she was an emigrant with no relatives in London. It was a dead end.

                                There is not enough surviving information to know to where Schwartz was running; depending on one's interpretation, he could have headed towards Ellen Street, or he could have headed towards somewhere else. Neither location is entirely satisfactory, and Swanson isn't concise enough to draw any firm conclusion.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-09-2021, 07:11 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X