Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel Schwartz - new information

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

  • Pat Marshall
    replied
    I may be wrong but didn't the brother of Israels wife live in Back Church Lane ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    I thought it was an intriguing idea, because Israel Schwartz did refer to living in Backchurch Lane and, studying maps, it was evident that No. 22 was beyond, or underneath, the railway arch, which would make sense of Swanson's some odd statement that the Schwartz had not been followed home, "as far as the railway arch."
    There was some talk in the recent past that Schwartz may have given his address as 22 Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane and not actually lived at 22 Back Church Lane. It's been a long time since i looked at any of this so my memory is a bit hazy. Checking the newspaper archive just now I came across an 1885 advert mentioning two leasehold tenements, 22 and 32 Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane let to weekly tenants.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    And even now, someone may be pondering a Kozminski-Kaminski-Koslowski-Culinski confusion theory ...
    Well, --out of mild curiosity, I did look up 'Culinsky'! Possibly a Polish tailor, Abraham Colinsky, living at 165 Wentworth Street in 1891. There was also a Joseph Colinsky, tailor, kicking around Mile End, the right age to have been his brother. Just more bystanders in the ever widening saga.

    It's somewhat strange that if we have the right Israel Schwartz on this thread, the Russian of Brunswick Street, and he's still living in the immediate neighborhood for all those years, that we didn't hear about him being used as a witness in the Sadler/Grainger cases. He's the most likely candidate, I admit, but I always fancied the idea that maybe Schwartz left the area, as witnesses sometimes do, so the police had no choice but to rely on the City's witness, Lawende. One of the many nagging enigmas for which there is no clear answer.


    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    which would make sense of Swanson's some odd statement that the Schwartz had not been followed home, "as far as the railway arch."
    My bad. Swanson didn't use the word 'home'--that's my assumption. Either way, his reference to the railway arch continues to confuse. Swanson evidently assumed the Home Office would understand the reference, so maybe there was an earlier and now lost report that mentioned it (?) Possibly by Inspector Reid? Aggravating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    It’s an interesting case in its own right, even without the Schwartz connection.

    https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/othe...chapel-in-1885

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    While there's probably only a dozen people in the world who will remember what the heck I'm talking about, I thought I'd post the following in regards to a dead-end involving the witness Israel Schwartz.

    Back in 2007, Gavin Bromley published an article in the Ripperologists about the Batty Street affair. Among other things, he mentioned the October 1885 case of Sarah Schwartz, a newly arrived Hungarian immigrant, aprox. age 18, who was brutally raped in the home/restaurant of her employers in Church Street, after she announced her desire to quit. The employers were arrested, charged, and eventually sentenced to prison.

    Anyway, it was reported that while awaiting the trial of her abusers, Sarah Schwartz moved to No. 22 Backchurch Lane, and Bromley wondered if this could mean there was a connection between Sarah and Israel Schwartz. He theorized she may have moved back home, or to the home of a relative, and this could have been Israel Schwartz. Complicating matters, no further record of Sarah Schwartz could be found to confirm/disprove this hypothesis.

    I thought it was an intriguing idea, because Israel Schwartz did refer to living in Backchurch Lane and, studying maps, it was evident that No. 22 was beyond, or underneath, the railway arch, which would make sense of Swanson's some odd statement that the Schwartz had not been followed home, "as far as the railway arch."

    Complicating matters even further, this row of houses in Backchurch Lane seems to have been demolished between 1885 and the time of the 1891 census to make way for a coal shed and stone yard, so it wasn't clear whether the house even still existed in September 1888. The houses certainly didn't exist at the time of the Goad Map of 1890:


    Click image for larger version Name:	Back Church Lane.JPG Views:	0 Size:	110.5 KB ID:	578141


    Anyway, the whole matter now appears to be a false lead. As interesting as Bromley's theory was, it no longer holds water. I've found another account of the Sarah Schwartz rape case from Oct 1885 and it states that she was actually headed to the United States from Hungary, but had been robbed aboard ship, and was only in London temporarily while she earned enough money to sail. She had no relatives in London, which means the No. 22 Backchurch Lane address is not connected to anyone named "Schwartz," nor any other relative.

    There was a Sarah Schwartz, age 18, who landed in New York in early 1886, and so perhaps this is her, and she eventually made her way to the United States. As I stated above, she apparently didn't stay in London after her horrific ordeal, as no sign of her was found in 1891 or 1901.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Sarah Schwartz.JPG Views:	0 Size:	52.6 KB ID:	578142

    It's a little difficult to read, but the relevant part states "she came from Hungary to London six months ago, to go to America, but was robbed of her money while on board. Being a young foreign girl, without friends or relatives, she first entered the service of a Mr. Culinksi in Cable Street...."

    Back to the drawing board.

    R P
    Thanks. It's always nice to see new discoveries about old speculations. It was even suggested that Israel Schwartz may have had a liking for the house number 22, as he lived at 22 Ellen Street and (the candidate Schwartz at) 22 Samuel Street, wasn't it?

    And even now, someone may be pondering a Kozminski-Kaminski-Koslowski-Culinski confusion theory ...

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

    RJ,

    I believe she was treated by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane.

    Yes, that's right. Another cameo by Dr. Swyer.



    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    While there's probably only a dozen people in the world who will remember what the heck I'm talking about, I thought I'd post the following in regards to a dead-end involving the witness Israel Schwartz.

    Back in 2007, Gavin Bromley published an article in the Ripperologists about the Batty Street affair. Among other things, he mentioned the October 1885 case of Sarah Schwartz, a newly arrived Hungarian immigrant, aprox. age 18, who was brutally raped in the home/restaurant of her employers in Church Street, after she announced her desire to quit. The employers were arrested, charged, and eventually sentenced to prison.

    Anyway, it was reported that while awaiting the trial of her abusers, Sarah Schwartz moved to No. 22 Backchurch Lane, and Bromley wondered if this could mean there was a connection between Sarah and Israel Schwartz. He theorized she may have moved back home, or to the home of a relative, and this could have been Israel Schwartz. Complicating matters, no further record of Sarah Schwartz could be found to confirm/disprove this hypothesis.

    I thought it was an intriguing idea, because Israel Schwartz did refer to living in Backchurch Lane and, studying maps, it was evident that No. 22 was beyond, or underneath, the railway arch, which would make sense of Swanson's some odd statement that the Schwartz had not been followed home, "as far as the railway arch."

    Complicating matters even further, this row of houses in Backchurch Lane seems to have been demolished between 1885 and the time of the 1891 census to make way for a coal shed and stone yard, so it wasn't clear whether the house even still existed in September 1888. The houses certainly didn't exist at the time of the Goad Map of 1890:


    Click image for larger version Name:	Back Church Lane.JPG Views:	0 Size:	110.5 KB ID:	578141


    Anyway, the whole matter now appears to be a false lead. As interesting as Bromley's theory was, it no longer holds water. I've found another account of the Sarah Schwartz rape case from Oct 1885 and it states that she was actually headed to the United States from Hungary, but had been robbed aboard ship, and was only in London temporarily while she earned enough money to sail. She had no relatives in London, which means the No. 22 Backchurch Lane address is not connected to anyone named "Schwartz," nor any other relative.

    There was a Sarah Schwartz, age 18, who landed in New York in early 1886, and so perhaps this is her, and she eventually made her way to the United States. As I stated above, she apparently didn't stay in London after her horrific ordeal, as no sign of her was found in 1891 or 1901.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Sarah Schwartz.JPG Views:	0 Size:	52.6 KB ID:	578142

    It's a little difficult to read, but the relevant part states "she came from Hungary to London six months ago, to go to America, but was robbed of her money while on board. Being a young foreign girl, without friends or relatives, she first entered the service of a Mr. Culinksi in Cable Street...."

    Back to the drawing board.

    R P
    RJ,

    I believe she was treated by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    While there's probably only a dozen people in the world who will remember what the heck I'm talking about, I thought I'd post the following in regards to a dead-end involving the witness Israel Schwartz.

    Back in 2007, Gavin Bromley published an article in the Ripperologists about the Batty Street affair. Among other things, he mentioned the October 1885 case of Sarah Schwartz, a newly arrived Hungarian immigrant, aprox. age 18, who was brutally raped in the home/restaurant of her employers in Church Street, after she announced her desire to quit. The employers were arrested, charged, and eventually sentenced to prison.

    Anyway, it was reported that while awaiting the trial of her abusers, Sarah Schwartz moved to No. 22 Backchurch Lane, and Bromley wondered if this could mean there was a connection between Sarah and Israel Schwartz. He theorized she may have moved back home, or to the home of a relative, and this could have been Israel Schwartz. Complicating matters, no further record of Sarah Schwartz could be found to confirm/disprove this hypothesis.

    I thought it was an intriguing idea, because Israel Schwartz did refer to living in Backchurch Lane and, studying maps, it was evident that No. 22 was beyond, or underneath, the railway arch, which would make sense of Swanson's some odd statement that the Schwartz had not been followed home, "as far as the railway arch."

    Complicating matters even further, this row of houses in Backchurch Lane seems to have been demolished between 1885 and the time of the 1891 census to make way for a coal shed and stone yard, so it wasn't clear whether the house even still existed in September 1888. The houses certainly didn't exist at the time of the Goad Map of 1890:


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Back Church Lane.JPG Views:	0 Size:	110.5 KB ID:	578141


    Anyway, the whole matter now appears to be a false lead. As interesting as Bromley's theory was, it no longer holds water. I've found another account of the Sarah Schwartz rape case from Oct 1885 and it states that she was actually headed to the United States from Hungary, but had been robbed aboard ship, and was only in London temporarily while she earned enough money to sail. She had no relatives in London, which means the No. 22 Backchurch Lane address is not connected to anyone named "Schwartz," nor any other relative.

    There was a Sarah Schwartz, age 18, who landed in New York in early 1886, and so perhaps this is her, and she eventually made her way to the United States. As I stated above, she apparently didn't stay in London after her horrific ordeal, as no sign of her was found in 1891 or 1901.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Sarah Schwartz.JPG Views:	0 Size:	52.6 KB ID:	578142

    It's a little difficult to read, but the relevant part states "she came from Hungary to London six months ago, to go to America, but was robbed of her money while on board. Being a young foreign girl, without friends or relatives, she first entered the service of a Mr. Culinksi in Cable Street...."

    Back to the drawing board.

    R P

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Interesting! Remember, Schwartz can be spelled a number of different ways. Spelling can be arbitrary and dependent upon the official first recording the information. It is amazing how 'Americanized' some surnames became at the intake. Simple names like Schwartz became something like Shots or Short. I wonder how names evolved or reverted over the time from original arrival to date of naturalization? If a Schwartz was assigned a name like Short, could he/would he work to reclaim the correct spelling?
    The Israel Schwartz of Princes Square who died in 1936 - who I still think is by far the likeliest candidate - is a case in point.

    Early variants include Schatz, [?]Schrratz, Schwatz, Swartz, Schwitz and Shwartz. And by the time he died he was - perhaps understandably - known as Shorts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    The furrier connection is interesting.

    For what it is worth...

    There was an Israel Schwartz, Hungarian (ie., Austria-Hungary) who emigrated to the U.S.A. in January 1895. Born around 1858.

    Strange to say, he was also a furrier. There is an Israel Schwartz in the 1910 & 20 U.S. Census that could be him, but I have my doubts, as the occupations don't match.

    I can find no record of his landing in the U.S. in January 1895, so it is impossible to say whether he sailed from the UK. The only immigrant named Israel Schwartz that even remotely fits was a few months earlier, but he is a Russian barber.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Schwartz.JPG
Views:	99
Size:	85.8 KB
ID:	576857
    Interesting! Remember, Schwartz can be spelled a number of different ways. Spelling can be arbitrary and dependent upon the official first recording the information. It is amazing how 'Americanized' some surnames became at the intake. Simple names like Schwartz became something like Shots or Short. I wonder how names evolved or reverted over the time from original arrival to date of naturalization? If a Schwartz was assigned a name like Short, could he/would he work to reclaim the correct spelling?

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    The furrier connection is interesting.

    For what it is worth...

    There was an Israel Schwartz, Hungarian (ie., Austria-Hungary) who emigrated to the U.S.A. in January 1895. Born around 1858.

    Strange to say, he was also a furrier. There is an Israel Schwartz in the 1910 & 20 U.S. Census that could be him, but I have my doubts, as the occupations don't match.

    I can find no record of his landing in the U.S. in January 1895, so it is impossible to say whether he sailed from the UK. The only immigrant named Israel Schwartz that even remotely fits was a few months earlier, but he is a Russian barber.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Schwartz.JPG
Views:	99
Size:	85.8 KB
ID:	576857

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Here are the children as they appeared in 1901, with notes on other appearances in the records:


    Esther, 16, b. Russia.
    Admitted to infants' section, Berner St School, 8 Dec 1890. In 1891 Dinah E., 6, b. Poland. In 1911 Etta, 25, b. Poland. Also known as Rose.
    Louis, 12, b. London St Georges.
    Born 10 April 1891, 19 Brunswick Street. In 1891 Louis 1 month, b. London, St Georges E. In 1911 (as Lionel), 21, b. St George's. Later known as Lionel.
    Daniel, 6, b. London St Georges.
    Born 26 August 1895, 13 Queen Street. In 1911, 17, b. St George's.
    Edward, 3, b. London St Georges.
    Born (as Judah) 8 April 1898, 143 Back Church Lane. In 1911 (as Judah), 13, b. St George's. Later known as Judah.
    Abraham, 1, b. London St Georges E.
    Born 29 May [sic] 1901, 1 John Street. In 1911 (as Abie), 11, b. St George's. Later known as Alf or Alfred.


    Ivor Shorts posted that his father Montague/Monty had been born Mendel. That clears up a small mystery, as I hadn't been able to find his birth registration. But here it is in September quarter 1902, in Whitechapel, according to the online GRO index:
    SCHWAT, MENDEL [mother's maiden name] RABINOWITZ
    Volume 01C Page 292

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    There was an Israel Schwartz listed in the 1901 census living at 21 Jubilee Street who was born in c.1865 and was a provision dealer born in Russia.


    Another (?) Isreal Schwartz, born c.1864 islisted in the 1891 census as living at 22 Samuel Street. He was a tailor's presser born in Poland. He is listed in th 1911 census as living at 26 Princes Square, off Cable Street, now a tailor, born in Poland. His son, Daniel, was a watchmaker. This is the same person the one who died in 1936.


    Am I right in assuming that the 1901 Schwartz is different from the other one?

    It is a bit confusing, because the Anglicised versions of the names are recorded differently at different times, and some dates in the records are misstated (perhaps to avoid penalties for late registration or not sending children to school at the right age). But I think those census records all relate to the same family.


    I am planning to try to go through this thread properly a bit later and update my notes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    There was an Israel Schwartz listed in the 1901 census living at 21 Jubilee Street who was born in c.1865 and was a provision dealer born in Russia.


    Another (?) Isreal Schwartz, born c.1864 islisted in the 1891 census as living at 22 Samuel Street. He was a tailor's presser born in Poland. He is listed in th 1911 census as living at 26 Princes Square, off Cable Street, now a tailor, born in Poland. His son, Daniel, was a watchmaker. This is the same person the one who died in 1936.


    Am I right in assuming that the 1901 Schwartz is different from the other one?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Ivor Shorts View Post
    Really, sorry, Howard. Unfortunately I have very little info re my grandfather, and of course I never met him, having been born about 10 years after he had died. It's only when you get older and the parents are gone do you then have questions that are too late to be answered. I never even knew the Ripper witness connection until a researcher a few years ago contacted my brother and he then informed me. Sorry to disappoint but as far as I can recollect my parents never mentioned anything about it. Do you think this may indicate that in fact he was not THE Israel Schwartz?

    All I know is that my grandfather def lived in Princess square, and that is def his family in the census, and that they are def my relatives. The question is: is he def the witness to the Stride murder?

    I have just been catching up on this thread, which I saw the start of at the time, but then lost track of.

    I was very interested to see the comments posted by Ivor Shorts here. I was the researcher who he mentions having contacted his brother (in 2008). I spent quite a lot of time tracing descendants of the Israel Schwartz discussed in this thread, and wrote to several of them.

    Unfortunately no one was really able to clarify the question of whether this Israel Schwartz was the 1888 witness. Sadly, a grandson Cyril (b. 1919) had died only a few months before. His son wrote "my great grandfather spoke only Yiddish and was barely able to communicate with my father who spoke almost no Yiddish. The only thing my father ever said to me about Israel Schwartz was that he had a sweet shop in Cable Street E1 and that he also 'repaired' watches. I use inverted commas because my father was convinced that Israel knew next to nothing about how watches work."

    Ivor's brother wrote "I am quite certain my father said that his parents were from Russia - what precise area I do not know ... Hungary was never
    mentioned. ... I also recall my father saying that his parents (and that included himself) lived in Cable Street - when and for how long I do not know."


    My own feeling is that this is the right Israel Schwartz. I think I am right in saying this is the only man of that name known to have been in England by 1890 (though I haven't absorbed all the information in this thread yet), and he was then in Brunswick Street, extremely close to Berner Street. I think it would be an amazing coincidence if he wasn't the same man. Given how little information we have about the witness, perhaps this is the best we can hope for.

    He is described as a Hungarian only by the Star, and I'm inclined to think that is just a mistake. Given that the reporter thought the interpreter was translating Hungarian, which seems unlikely, could it simply be that the interpreter was a Hungarian translating Yiddish, and that the reporter assumed Schwartz's nationality was the same as the interpreter's?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X