Nathan Shine - reluctant witness?

[Bridewell]

It looks as though Nathan Shine, assuming it's the same one, moved about a bit. There is a man of that name on the 1893 electoral roll living at 8, Fashion Court, in 1894 6, Tenter Street, then 4 successive years at different addresses in Tilley Street.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Jon/Mike...afraid I missed your replies first time round...fascinating family tradition if nothing else

All the best

Dave

[Ozzy]

I'm familiar with Nathan Shine, probably from the AP thread.
I've always wondered if there's a family connection with Zena Shine who appears in Richard Jones' video (Unmasking Jack the Ripper I think it's called).
Anybody?

[Michael W Richards]

Could the master-witness have been Nathan Shine?

1. Shine allegedly saw a man with a knife kneeling over Elizabeth Stride’s body – that would certainly be sufficient evidence to see the varmint hanged.

2. Shine was a member of the IWMES – presumably no friend to the Establishment and upstanding, law-abiding, righteous citizen who would dutifully hand a felon over to the constabulary.

3. Shine is not mentioned in any surviving police document and is not known to have made a formal statement. This strongly suggests he was a witness who was not regarded as trustworthy.

4. Shine’s story survived through oral tradition only. But why? During the autumn of terror dozens of people were no doubt telling their mates in the pub ‘ooh! The fellow sitting next to me on the omnibus today had a black bag and I’m sure I saw a knife sticking out of it.’ None of these stories, quite rightly, have survived in the telling through three generations the way Shine’s did. What is special or significant about Shine’s story therefore?

Hi Nell,

Well, on #1 I would think a witness in the Stride murder would not be considered the best witness to have seen Jack, since Stride has no wounds indicative of the killer sought. For #2, the fact that he was aligned with the club makes his statement suspect, since its the club members statements that night that have zero corroboration from anyone unaffiliated, and unabashedly create an offsite Gentile murderer. Since she is found dead on their property, statements without verification that suggest the murder could not have been a club member seem extraordinarily self serving, and not necessarily reflective of the actual evidence available. As for #3, that in and of itself should address your thread inquiry. And #4, there are plenty of stories that had nothing to do with any provable reality that have survived about these cases, a good example being the conjecture about a depressed suicidal barrister.

Israel Schwartz may well have had links with the club, Ive heard he had some connection with William Wess that is being investigated...which would be plenty of ammunition for excluding his statement from the Inquest...which it apparently was.

I believe the evidence, including later line-ups, suggest Lawende was the man. Which is rather odd considering he told the officials 2 weeks after his statement that he couldnt identify the man again.

Best regards

[Lechmere]

One trouble with the story is that the Shine family lived in Spitafields. In his account he was on his way home from a night out and was walking down Berner Street from Commercial Road. He was going in the opposite direction from 'home'.

[The Good Michael]

What I recall (perhaps mistakenly) is that the Shine story was a much later family tradition and that no investigation into its (the story's) provenance bore fruit. It was debated loudly and at length on this very site with the immobile old guard winning out over the newer and more speculative crowd.

Mike

From AP http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/12027.html

[Wickerman]

I'm sure I've heard Tom talk about this guy, didn't he have two names? I mean this name was an alternate, can't remember the other name he used - I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
If anyone has a file on him it will be Tom Wescott.

[Cogidubnus]

Nathan Shine

I'm afraid I've never heard of this witness...nor apparently has the A-Z...can anybody please elucidate?

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Schwartz was described as "theatrical", a word with several possible meanings, including "histrionic".

Hi Colin.

The context appears to refer to his physical appearance..

"This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line."
The Star, 1 Oct. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

The master-witness was a vacillating, unreliable individual. Schwartz may not have appeared at the inquest but Abberline and Swanson both regarded him and his testimony as reliable and trustworthy.

Schwartz was described as "theatrical", a word with several possible meanings, including "histrionic". It might have been his demeanour as a witness, rather than the reliability of his testimony, which prevented his appearance at the Stride inquest.

I'm sure I've seen mention of Nathan Shine before on the boards. Rather annoyingly I can't remember what, if anything, the conclusion was.

[Carrotty Nell]

The debate has gone on for years over who Anderson’s and Swanson’s reluctant Jewish witness was. The two most obvious candidates are Joseph Lawende and Israel Schwartz.

Two facts about the master-witness stand out which would seem to rule out either of these men:

1. The master-witness was a vacillating, unreliable individual. Schwartz may not have appeared at the inquest but Abberline and Swanson both regarded him and his testimony as reliable and trustworthy.

2. Swanson said that the witness’ evidence would have been sufficient in itself to see the suspect hanged. All Lawende and his friends saw was a woman whom they could not positively identify as Catherine Eddowes talking to a man in Church Passage – they could have been innocent bystanders on their way home from the pub. Any defence lawyer could blast this evidence into orbit.

Could the master-witness have been Nathan Shine?

1. Shine allegedly saw a man with a knife kneeling over Elizabeth Stride’s body – that would certainly be sufficient evidence to see the varmint hanged.

2. Shine was a member of the IWMES – presumably no friend to the Establishment and upstanding, law-abiding, righteous citizen who would dutifully hand a felon over to the constabulary.

3. Shine is not mentioned in any surviving police document and is not known to have made a formal statement. This strongly suggests he was a witness who was not regarded as trustworthy.

4. Shine’s story survived through oral tradition only. But why? During the autumn of terror dozens of people were no doubt telling their mates in the pub ‘ooh! The fellow sitting next to me on the omnibus today had a black bag and I’m sure I saw a knife sticking out of it.’ None of these stories, quite rightly, have survived in the telling through three generations the way Shine’s did. What is special or significant about Shine’s story therefore?