A Whip and a Prod

[NotBlamedForNothing]

They also held meetings in Buck's Row, by the board school, within a few feet of where Mrs Nichols was found.

They also held meetings at a hall virtually opposite 29 Hanbury Street.

Which of the following do people believe, regarding these quotes, and the 2nd quote in #217:

1. False
2. News to me
3. True, but so what?
4. True, but I'd rather not think about the possible implications
5. True, and this is a vital clue!

[drstrange169]

>> It is an insult from one type of Jew to another - not (or not necessarily) from a Gentile to a Jew.<<

"Lipski" was an anti semetic slur.

According to a Home Office report, it was also a verb, as in, I'm going to "Lipski" someone.



>> Radical Jews used to meet at this club often, prior to taking their demonstrations to The Great Synagogue in Mitre Square, which was close to the spot where Catherine Eddowes...<<

They also held meetings in Buck's Row, by the board school, within a few feet of where Mrs Nichols was found.

They also held meetings at a hall virtually opposite 29 Hanbury Street.

[drstrange169]

Not only does Schwartz fail to make any pro club/Jewish statement to Abberline, given the golden opportunity to spread a conspiracy story to the wider public via the Star, he fails to make any mention of a "Lipski" exclamation in that article.

Add to that, Wess's story in the Echo that seems to accuse Schwartz of being the killer and a non-club member chasing him away.

The final nail in the coffin, is the total failure of the club's propaganda paper to mention the story.

It's very hard to dismiss many things in this case, but the Schwartz conspiracy concoction is one we reasonably can.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't assume that 'Lipski' was an antisemitic insult (at least not to all people):

Ripperologist 96 - Berner Street (Henriques Street) Revisited:

The International Working Men’s Club had a very mixed reputation amongst the locals. Despite their efforts to aid the most deprived of their fellow Jews in getting better working conditions, there was a great deal of antagonism between local Jewry and members of the club, which was equally reciprocated by the club members for the more orthodox Jews. This was mainly because the Rabbis condemned the radicals as being heretics and atheists, and the Jewish Chronicle constantly spoke against them. Most orthodox Jews considered them to be ‘bad Jews’ because of their political views and policy of agitation, and also because they dismissed religion as irrelevant and they were mainly atheists.

'Lipski' doesn't mean 'dirty Jew', it means 'orthodox Jew' and/or 'Capitalist Jew'.
It is an insult from one type of Jew to another - not (or not necessarily) from a Gentile to a Jew.

Also from that article:

Radical Jews used to meet at this club often, prior to taking their demonstrations to The Great Synagogue in Mitre Square, which was close to the spot where Catherine Eddowes was murdered shortly after Liz Stride.

Fascinating!

[c.d.]

That Schwartz's statement benefited the Club is completely immaterial. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether his statement is wrong or unreliable as Jeff pointed out. Even if it could be proven that his statement benefited the club it still has to be proven that he deliberately lied. And that unfortunately can not be inferred from his failure to appear at the inquest. If that is all it takes then we have to dismiss Fanny's statement as well.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

"The interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel."

I posted that to show Jeff that even if he directed the cry to Lipski it might have been conspiratorial. I don't see any evidence contradicting what Abberline perceived to be an insult directed at an unwanted spectator. Israel was Lipski, therefore its an anti-Semitic slur...as has been described here and by contemporary investigators.

Since was Israel claimed he saw was never part of the Inquest in Strides death, one need not be to quick to dismiss what is, for what might have been.

You're still focusing on what Abberline changed Schwartz's testimony to, so unless you're arguing Abberline was part of the conspiracy, Abberline's view is irrelevant for this context. All that is relevant is that Schwartz's original story because that is the story the conspiracy is supposed to have authored - and that story is that pipeman is Lipski, making pipeman a Jewish offender and by implication BS a Jewish offender. Everything after that (changing what Schwartz's story was originally into "Lipski as an insult directed as Schwartz himself") is not the conspiracy's story but a story authored by others.

The story that fits the conspiracy, therefore, is the one authored by Abberline, not the one authored by Schwartz. So Schwartz is not part of the conspiracy, but as you focus on Abberline's version, you appear to be arguing that Abberline is part of the conspiracy. And if he was, then Abberline would have ensured the club was avoided anyway, and so the whole need for the conspiracy disoloves since the police are already in on it. In other words, no matter how you slice it, trying to tie Schwartz into the conspiracy creates paradoxes - the conspiracy either authors a story that implicates Jewish offenders as a way to deflect attention away from Jewish offenders OR the conspiracy has a man in the police (Abberline) capable of deflecting attention away from the club by changing Schwartz's evidence, in which case, the club didn't need to conspire in the first place as they already have a man on the inside.

These paradoxes refute Schwartz as a member of the conspiracy and refute Abberline as a member of the conspiracy.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

The issue is that your first paragraph is discussing what Schwartz's testimony has been re-interpreted to mean by those other than Schwartz himself. His claim, and that's what is critical to including him as part of the conspiracy, is that Lipski was shouted at pipeman. It doesn't matter if we now think Schwartz was wrong, we can't base the conspiracy's intention based upon correcting Schwartz's statement. His statement, while it would be consistent with a perpetrator who was not in the club, is not consistent with an anti-semitic perpetrator because his statement is given to imply that Pipeman was named Lipski (hence the police, and the home-office in particular, focusing on locating all the Lipski families in the area - because that was Schwartz's testimony as given). Anything based upon changing what he said, while undoubtedly more likely to be true, is not something that can be used to argue for Schwartz being part of the conspiracy. That argument has to be based upon what Schwartz himself initially conveyed - and he initially conveyed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman and from the police response to that testimony, Schwartz's interpretation seems to be that Lipski was pipeman's name. That implicates a Jewish offender (since Jews and Gentiles did not typically socialize, and so probably did not co-offend, as I understand it).

I agree with you that Schwartz was probably mistaken, and Lipski was used as a derogatory epithet directed at Schwartz himself (as per Abberline's re-framing of Schwartz's testimony). But that re-framing, which does suggest an anti-semitic attitude on the offender's part, was not what Schwartz said or implied - he implied a Jewish offender in the form of pipeman. And if it's a Jewish offender lookout, it's probable that his BS man is also a Jewish offender. And since BS was spotted heading towards the club, there then becomes the possibility that the police would conclude he was going/returning to the club. In other words, taken as given by Schwartz, his story would only serve to increase the risk the police take interest in the club itself. If they wanted to direct attention away from the club, which is the stated goal of the conspiracy, then having BS shout "MacDonald" at pipeman would do it, but shoutling "Lipski" at pipeman does not. You can't use Abberline's changed interpretation of Schwartz's statement as evidence of what Schwartz testified. And it is Shwartz's testimony that would reflect the "story" as concocted by the conspiracy. And since his story contradicts the conspiracy objective, his story cannot have been concocted by the conspiracy.

There's no way around that, Schwartz, by his statement, is not part of the conspiracy. He might still be wrong, and/or unreliable, but that's a different issue. What he is not is part of a grand scheme to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender and/or the club. His tale, as he gave it, does the direct opposite.

- Jeff

"The interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel."

I posted that to show Jeff that even if he directed the cry to Lipski it might have been conspiratorial. I don't see any evidence contradicting what Abberline perceived to be an insult directed at an unwanted spectator. Israel was Lipski, therefore its an anti-Semitic slur...as has been described here and by contemporary investigators.

Since was Israel claimed he saw was never part of the Inquest in Strides death, one need not be to quick to dismiss what is, for what might have been.

[JeffHamm]

I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post cd, the interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel.

I think the value of Israels statement was to be two fold. Off site assailant, and an anti-Semitic. Think of the ramifications in broader terms,..there was lots of negative feelings towards the Immigrant Jews, and during that previous month detectives knocked on the doors in these communities to make inquiries into the Ripper murders. Andersons conclusions upon his return was that Jack was an local Jew based on those notes..and since they themselves claimed "another murder" had been committed, then this would show that the Jews have no "blame" in these terrible deeds. But someone who placed the apron section didn't like that.

That's why we don't see him Sunday morning first thing. And that's why the club staff hesitated before taking substantial action to get help. Spin doctoring takes a few moments.

Hi Michael,

The issue is that your first paragraph is discussing what Schwartz's testimony has been re-interpreted to mean by those other than Schwartz himself. His claim, and that's what is critical to including him as part of the conspiracy, is that Lipski was shouted at pipeman. It doesn't matter if we now think Schwartz was wrong, we can't base the conspiracy's intention based upon correcting Schwartz's statement. His statement, while it would be consistent with a perpetrator who was not in the club, is not consistent with an anti-semitic perpetrator because his statement is given to imply that Pipeman was named Lipski (hence the police, and the home-office in particular, focusing on locating all the Lipski families in the area - because that was Schwartz's testimony as given). Anything based upon changing what he said, while undoubtedly more likely to be true, is not something that can be used to argue for Schwartz being part of the conspiracy. That argument has to be based upon what Schwartz himself initially conveyed - and he initially conveyed Lipski was shouted to Pipeman and from the police response to that testimony, Schwartz's interpretation seems to be that Lipski was pipeman's name. That implicates a Jewish offender (since Jews and Gentiles did not typically socialize, and so probably did not co-offend, as I understand it).

I agree with you that Schwartz was probably mistaken, and Lipski was used as a derogatory epithet directed at Schwartz himself (as per Abberline's re-framing of Schwartz's testimony). But that re-framing, which does suggest an anti-semitic attitude on the offender's part, was not what Schwartz said or implied - he implied a Jewish offender in the form of pipeman. And if it's a Jewish offender lookout, it's probable that his BS man is also a Jewish offender. And since BS was spotted heading towards the club, there then becomes the possibility that the police would conclude he was going/returning to the club. In other words, taken as given by Schwartz, his story would only serve to increase the risk the police take interest in the club itself. If they wanted to direct attention away from the club, which is the stated goal of the conspiracy, then having BS shout "MacDonald" at pipeman would do it, but shoutling "Lipski" at pipeman does not. You can't use Abberline's changed interpretation of Schwartz's statement as evidence of what Schwartz testified. And it is Shwartz's testimony that would reflect the "story" as concocted by the conspiracy. And since his story contradicts the conspiracy objective, his story cannot have been concocted by the conspiracy.

There's no way around that, Schwartz, by his statement, is not part of the conspiracy. He might still be wrong, and/or unreliable, but that's a different issue. What he is not is part of a grand scheme to deflect attention away from a Jewish offender and/or the club. His tale, as he gave it, does the direct opposite.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, getting Michael to even question one of his theories let alone abandon it would be as productive as trying to convince ice not to be so cold.

c.d.

I believe I addressed that in a subsequent post cd, the interpretation of who the Lipski was actually shouted at could easily be , if not a direct insult to Israel which at least Abberline thought out loud, a co-conspirator indicating that a "Lipski" was now in their presence...again directed Israel.

I think the value of Israels statement was to be two fold. Off site assailant, and an anti-Semitic. Think of the ramifications in broader terms,..there was lots of negative feelings towards the Immigrant Jews, and during that previous month detectives knocked on the doors in these communities to make inquiries into the Ripper murders. Andersons conclusions upon his return was that Jack was an local Jew based on those notes..and since they themselves claimed "another murder" had been committed, then this would show that the Jews have no "blame" in these terrible deeds. But someone who placed the apron section didn't like that.

That's why we don't see him Sunday morning first thing. And that's why the club staff hesitated before taking substantial action to get help. Spin doctoring takes a few moments.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Statements from club members also support a time of death well before 1:03.
For example:

Abraham Hoshberg (via Evening News Oct 1): I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat. I should say she was from 25 to 28 years of age. Her head was towards the north wall, against which she was lying. She had a black dress on, with a bunch of flowers pinned on the breast. In her hand there was a little piece of paper containing five or six cachous. The body was found by a man whose name I do not know - a man who goes out with a pony and barrow, and lives up the archway, where he was going, I believe, to put up his barrow on coming home from market.

So Hoshberg hears the police whistle at around the time Israel Schwartz turns into Berner St.
Schwartz reaches the gates at about 12:47, so even if we assume that "about a quarter to one o'clock" was more like 12:50, it would seem the murder has already occurred by the time Schwartz witnesses the scene involving two men and one woman.
Therefore the woman in that scene is not Elizabeth Stride!

Now you know why BS man behaves so oddly (for a murderer), and pipe man behaves so casually (at least initially).
Now you know why Stride showed no signs of having been thrown down onto the cobblestones.
Now you know why - at least for one reason - Stride does not drop the cachous packet.

Notice also, that Hoshberg makes no mention of actually seeing the pony and barrow he refers to - he only refers to it in the abstract. Why?

Suppose we push back Diemschutz' arrival from around 1:00, to immediately after the Schwartz event, in an attempt to rescue his story ...

At 12:48, while pipe man chases the Lipski away from the scene, BSM/JtR cuts Stride's throat, and seconds later, pony and cart pull into the yard.

Doing this however, is going to once again cause a cascade of issues.
Firstly:

Diemschutz: On Saturday I left home about half-past eleven in the morning, and returned exactly at one o'clock on Sunday morning. I noticed the time at the baker's shop at the corner of Berner-street.

Why was he out by so far?
Was the clock time wrong - the same clock that Schwartz, Lamb, Smith and others would have passed?

Secondly:

Evening News re Fanny Mortimer: Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

This is supposedly at about 1:04, which is a fairly good match for Diemschutz' claim to have seen the clock tower at exactly 1:00.
During the inquest, no one appears to have actually observed the pony and cart in the lane.
If we move Diemschutz' arrival back to 12:48, we are left with the stunning realisation:

Other than the man who claims to have discovered the body (and is therefore a person of interest), not a single person appears to have actually seen or heard the pony and cart, on the night of the murder!

Thirdly:

Why didn't Fanny see Diemschutz arriving, having gone outside after hearing the footsteps?

Fourthly:

Why didn't Leon Goldstein see anything, having walked by the scene at 12:50-something (according to Fanny!), by which time there should have been considerable activity near the body?

So an earlier arrival time doesn't work any better than 1 am arrival time.
What is the solution to this dilemma then?

Consider that, other than the sound of the clip-clop of hooves, the pony and cart play no other important role in Diemschutz' story.
Furthermore, they can be removed without causing any contradiction with any other witness statement.
Pony and cart are only required to frighten off the Ripper, without anyone having to enter the yard on foot.
The notion of the sound of approaching pony and cart, causing JtR to flee the scene, is offered by Diemschutz almost immediately (and by Mrs Mortimer).
So I think the solution to the problem of Diemschutz' arrival time is:

There was no pony and cart in Dutfield's Yard, that night.

Diemschutz' story is a total fabrication.

[drstrange169]

>> I was addressing Dusty Bones <<

I have to sue for copyright infringement!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

>>The matted hair and muddied clothing on the left side says its most probable she was cut somewhere other than where she fell ... <<

Mrs Stride was lying in the gutter and it had been raining that night.

Did the blood trek across a mud filled gutter, on its journey from body to drain, or did it flow over the cobblestones?

If the former, what was the source of all the dirt/mud?
Why did multiple sources say the blood flowed like a stream?

If the latter, then the matted hair and plastered clothing suggest movement of the body.

By the way, Stride was not lying in the gutter, she was lying across the wheel rut - head on one side, body on the other.
The earth under the wheel rut would have been firm from compression, so what little dirt was in it would have been partly washed away before Stride was laid over it.

[DJA]

Yes, but apparently not as big as the night you had as I was addressing Dusty Bones. No problem though.

c.d.

It's Straya Day Long Weekend down here in Oz.

[c.d.]

>> Schwartz's story doesn't direct attention away from a Jewish offender but towards one, and therefore does not fit the conspiracy objective. Schwartz, therefore, cannot be part of it ...<<

Hello Jeff, you've pointed this out to Micheal before, but he's committed to his theory despite the fact that every part of it has more holes in it than a porcupine's pullover.

Yes, getting Michael to even question one of his theories let alone abandon it would be as productive as trying to convince ice not to be so cold.

c.d.

[c.d.]

>>Hello Dusty,

Welcome to the boards.<<

Hello C.D. I'm assuming you had a big night out! I've been on these boards since the 1990's and the post you quoted wasn't mine;-)

Yes, but apparently not as big as the night you had as I was addressing Dusty Bones. No problem though.

c.d.