Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can’t answer for the other poster, but I’m not aware of this. Who was pipe man?




I know you meant Schwartz and not Kosminski. Now, where is this testimony that you’re referring to?

We don't have the actual record of his verbatim testimony, but we do have a record that he testified that the insult was directed at him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have mentioned this before and it is only a theory. When Schwartz heard the man call Lipski could he have been hearing the polish translation of Nosey ( meaning possibly what are you looking at) which is wścibski. If he was Hungarian he may not have understood this. If one looks on Google translate English-Polish you can actually listen to the word in Polish. Its very similar to Lipski and could point to the man being Polish.......Theory...

I don't think so, because the word you suggest has three consecutive consonants at the beginning of it, whereas Lipski has only one.


Israel Schwartz was Polish.


Though he was described at the time as being from Hungary, 1891 census entries show him as being Polish and of Jewish descent.<sup>[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Schwartz

I do remember reading this a long time ago, but have only just realised the full significance of it.

Both Schwartz and Lawende were Polish Jews - and so was Kosminski.

We are being asked to believe that neither of them could recognise Kosminski as a fellow Polish Jew until they met him at the Seaside Home.
We are being asked to believe that Schwartz didn't recognise a Polish name shouted at him by a fellow Polish native as having been pronounced the Polish way.

Hogwash.</sup>

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What are the common visual differences between a 23 year old and a 30 year old? I mean, most people can differentiate a 23 year old from a 50, 60, or 70 year old. But how does one accurately differentiate between a 23 and 30 year old?



it’s interesting that you take his refusal to pay a fine on the sabbath as him being a “religious Jew” yet from the exact same court proceeding you don’t accept him answering in English to questions asked in English as proof that he could speak English. This is a classic example of attempting to twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative.



what? It’s unheard of? So there are no instances of Jews displaying drunkenness? How about Polish Jews killing women in Victorian era London, was that unheard of as well?




it’s not unthinkable. Abberline didn’t hear the remark or context, Israel Schwartz did. And Schwartz could barely speak English and could not say who the comment was directed at.



he did? When was this?



maybe it is, or it isn’t. We don’t know the context of the statement or who it was directed at, so no, we don’t know. I will at least give you that it’s “reasonable”, since it’s one of two options.



we know that Kosminski gradually wasted away after he was incarcerated (over the course of nearly 30 years of course). We can probably safely assume he was not obese in 1888, and probably not “fat” either. But being “broad shouldered” would not exclude one from being “thin” either,




he didn’t say the suspect was an Englishman either. He said he had a fair complexion with dark hair and a dark mustache. For all we know, considering JtR killed 2 women within an hour from each other, and both outside or near Jewish mens’ clubs, Schwartz may well have assumed that both he and the police understood that the suspect was Jewish.




Schwartz was a relative newcomer to London who could barely speak English, now you’ve got him differentiating the pronunciations of a native Englishman and a Polish born Jew who’d lived in England for 6 years based on one word that he heard in a split stressful second ?



Jews aren’t generally known to be lunatics either, yet I can name numerous Jewish lunatics from this very case. Religious Christian ministers don’t associate with prostitutes either, yet I offer up Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker as proof to the contrary. And while I can’t provide his synagogue attendance records as proof of how religious he was, Jacob Levy was a Jew who certainly associated with prostitutes in Whitechapel.

The point here being: you’ve somehow taken Kosminski not wanting to pay a fine on the sabbath as him being religious (when it just as easily could’ve been him not wanting to pay the fine at all) when the fact is, you have no earthly idea what a mentally ill Jewish person left to his own devices would or would not have done or who they would’ve associated with.

What are the common visual differences between a 23 year old and a 30 year old? I mean, most people can differentiate a 23 year old from a 50, 60, or 70 year old. But how does one accurately differentiate between a 23 and 30 year old?



I think witnesses can generally tell the difference between a 23-year-old and a 30-year-old.

Where there is such a big age difference, it should not be treated with scepticism in order to accommodate a named suspect.

I had an exchange with an anti-Kosminski poster on another forum, who claimed that in a picture of 'Kosminski' - with dark hair - Kosminski looked much older than 23 and easily looked 30.

When I pointed out that no-one knows exactly what Kosminski looked like, he argued that in the lighting, a 23-year-old could easily look 30.

When I was exchanging views with anti-Lechmere Holmgren, on the other hand, he argued that 39-year-old Lechmere could easily have looked 30!

The evidence is that the suspects seen by Schwarz and Lawende were aged about 30.

That suggests that neither suspect was Kosminski.




it’s interesting that you take his refusal to pay a fine on the sabbath as him being a “religious Jew” yet from the exact same court proceeding you don’t accept him answering in English to questions asked in English as proof that he could speak English. This is a classic example of attempting to twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative.



The court transcript does not mention that his answers were given through an interpreter. The question is: if they were given through an interpreter, would the court record mention that?

Unless we have a definite answer to this question, we cannot know that the answers he gave were given by him in English.

Most Jews in Whitechapel were religious, so my deduction that he was a religious Jew is not exactly controversial.

What would have been the point of refusing to pay a fine on the Sabbath other than a religious one?

It isn't as though he could refuse indefinitely.




what? It’s unheard of? So there are no instances of Jews displaying drunkenness? How about Polish Jews killing women in Victorian era London, was that unheard of as well?



That's right.

It was well-known that public displays of drunkenness by Jews in the East End of London were unheard of.

And it was noted by a leading detective in the Whitechapel Murders case.

I have never heard of any Polish Jew being identified as a murderer of gentile women in Victorian London.




it’s not unthinkable [that Jews would have directed 'Lipski' at one another].




It is unthinkable that Jews would shout an anti-Jewish insult at one another.

Why don't you try asking one?

Do you imagine that when the Nazis called Jews 'Jewish swine' that Jews were using the insult against one another?

I'm stating facts.

What you're stating is far-fetched.




Abberline didn’t hear the remark or context, Israel Schwartz did.



You refer to the context of the remark - 'Lipski'.

There was no context, other than the fact that since the previous year, it had become a way of insulting Jews in Whitechapel.

If you mean that other words were said, they weren't.

It was a one-word insult and that is how Schwarz reported it.




And Schwartz could barely speak English and could not say who the comment was directed at.



Schwarz didn't need to be able to speak English in order to recognise a Polish name which was used as an insult by some English people.

Schwarz testified at the inquest that the insult was directed at him.




Schwartz was a relative newcomer to London who could barely speak English, now you’ve got him differentiating the pronunciations of a native Englishman and a Polish born Jew who’d lived in England for 6 years based on one word that he heard in a split stressful second ?



That's right.

The fact that a Polish-born Jew had lived in England for six years wouldn't automatically have changed the way he pronounced 'Lipski'.

He wouldn't have been speaking with a London accent.

Schwarz would have realised instantly that the man was a native gentile and not a Polish Jew.

It would have taken longer for a gentile Londoner to shout 'Lipski!' than a Pole - and it would have taken about one second, not a split second, as you claim.




we know that Kosminski gradually wasted away after he was incarcerated (over the course of nearly 30 years of course). We can probably safely assume he was not obese in 1888, and probably not “fat” either. But being “broad shouldered” would not exclude one from being “thin” either,



The evidence is that the man was about 30 years old, broad-shouldered, semi-drunk, and anti-Semitic.

You are suggesting he could have been a 23-year-old, thin, Polish Jew.


That is not credible.




Schwartz may well have assumed that both he and the police understood that the suspect was Jewish.




Schwarz may not 'well' have assumed that the suspect was Jewish.

Your use of the word 'well' is obviously not justified.

The evidence is that Schwarz described a drunken anti-Semite.

If he had thought the suspect was Jewish, then he couldn't have been Anderson and Swanson's witness - because their witness would not incriminate a fellow Jew!





you have no earthly idea what a mentally ill Jewish person left to his own devices would or would not have done or who they would’ve associated with.




Where is the evidence that Kosminski had a great hatred of prostitutes, other than MacNaghten, who thought Druitt was a doctor (he was a lawyer) who had died about three weeks earlier than he had, that Ostrog was a homicidal maniac (he was a fraudster) who could have been in London (he was in Paris) and Kosminski had gone mad from masturbating?

There isn't even any evidence that Kosminski ever associated with prostitutes, and it's very unlikely because, as I said, the vast majority of Jews in the East End were religious and they didn't associate with prostitutes.

And that's a fact.

[Paddy]

I have mentioned this before and it is only a theory. When Schwartz heard the man call Lipski could he have been hearing the polish translation of Nosey ( meaning possibly what are you looking at) which is wścibski. If he was Hungarian he may not have understood this. If one looks on Google translate English-Polish you can actually listen to the word in Polish. Its very similar to Lipski and could point to the man being Polish.......Theory...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What evidence is there for this please ? I thought this was supposition mainly down to the Star's report of Oct 2 - They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source.

That other source could be Pc Smith for instance. Not only that but the inquest did not finish until Oct 23 . we can argue all we want why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest , but no pipeman as well ? Surely if he was traced wouldn't he have appeared ?

Also Anderson in a letter dated Nov 5 makes mention of the word Lipski and their conclusions and evidence given by Schwartz. But no mention of Pipeman giving any evidence or being interviewed at all.

Regards Darryl

I have read that letter by Anderson and have alluded to it previously.

I will have to look for the sources of the Pipe Man being traced.

I think there were two.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Are you not aware of the reports that the police traced the pipe man?

What evidence is there for this please ? I thought this was supposition mainly down to the Star's report of Oct 2 - They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source.

That other source could be Pc Smith for instance. Not only that but the inquest did not finish until Oct 23 . we can argue all we want why Schwartz wasn't at the inquest , but no pipeman as well ? Surely if he was traced wouldn't he have appeared ?

Also Anderson in a letter dated Nov 5 makes mention of the word Lipski and their conclusions and evidence given by Schwartz. But no mention of Pipeman giving any evidence or being interviewed at all.

Regards Darryl

[Pontius2000]

Are you not aware of the reports that the police traced the pipe man?

I can’t answer for the other poster, but I’m not aware of this. Who was pipe man?

Instead, there is a record that Kosminski testified that the insult was directed at him.

I know you meant Schwartz and not Kosminski. Now, where is this testimony that you’re referring to?

[Pontius2000]

Nine reasons for eliminating Kosminski as the suspect seen by Schwarz:


(1) The suspect was about seven years older than Kosminski

What are the common visual differences between a 23 year old and a 30 year old? I mean, most people can differentiate a 23 year old from a 50, 60, or 70 year old. But how does one accurately differentiate between a 23 and 30 year old?

(2) Kosminski, as a religious Jew, would not have frequented pubs

it’s interesting that you take his refusal to pay a fine on the sabbath as him being a “religious Jew” yet from the exact same court proceeding you don’t accept him answering in English to questions asked in English as proof that he could speak English. This is a classic example of attempting to twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative.

(3) It is and was well-known that cases of Jews displaying drunkenness in public were unheard-of

what? It’s unheard of? So there are no instances of Jews displaying drunkenness? How about Polish Jews killing women in Victorian era London, was that unheard of as well?

(4) The exclamation 'Lipski' made by the suspect was, as noted by Abberline, an anti-Jewish insult, and it is unthinkable that Jews would have directed it at one another

it’s not unthinkable. Abberline didn’t hear the remark or context, Israel Schwartz did. And Schwartz could barely speak English and could not say who the comment was directed at.

(5) The exclamation was indeed directed at Schwarz, a fact which Schwarz himself confirmed in his inquest testimony

he did? When was this?

(6) It is therefore reasonable to conclude - as Abberline did - that the remark was made on account of Schwarz's Jewish appearance

maybe it is, or it isn’t. We don’t know the context of the statement or who it was directed at, so no, we don’t know. I will at least give you that it’s “reasonable”, since it’s one of two options.

(7) The suspect was broad-shouldered, whereas Kosminski was thin

we know that Kosminski gradually wasted away after he was incarcerated (over the course of nearly 30 years of course). We can probably safely assume he was not obese in 1888, and probably not “fat” either. But being “broad shouldered” would not exclude one from being “thin” either,

(8) Schwarz did not say that the suspect was a foreigner.

he didn’t say the suspect was an Englishman either. He said he had a fair complexion with dark hair and a dark mustache. For all we know, considering JtR killed 2 women within an hour from each other, and both outside or near Jewish mens’ clubs, Schwartz may well have assumed that both he and the police understood that the suspect was Jewish.

There is a difference between the way a British person would have pronounced 'Lipski' and the way a Polish person would have pronounced it - specifically the way in which the two 'i's would have been pronounced.

Being from Eastern Europe himself, Schwarz would have been aware of that.

Schwartz was a relative newcomer to London who could barely speak English, now you’ve got him differentiating the pronunciations of a native Englishman and a Polish born Jew who’d lived in England for 6 years based on one word that he heard in a split stressful second ?

(9) Religious Jews did not associate with prostitutes in Whitechapel

Jews aren’t generally known to be lunatics either, yet I can name numerous Jewish lunatics from this very case. Religious Christian ministers don’t associate with prostitutes either, yet I offer up Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker as proof to the contrary. And while I can’t provide his synagogue attendance records as proof of how religious he was, Jacob Levy was a Jew who certainly associated with prostitutes in Whitechapel.

The point here being: you’ve somehow taken Kosminski not wanting to pay a fine on the sabbath as him being religious (when it just as easily could’ve been him not wanting to pay the fine at all) when the fact is, you have no earthly idea what a mentally ill Jewish person left to his own devices would or would not have done or who they would’ve associated with.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was meant as an insult. That is unknown.

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was shouted at Schwarz. That is unknown.


The reason for that is that the police at the time stated as a possibility that it was shouted at the other man present (Pipeman), and might have been a name, nickname or similar, and Schwartz himself was uncertain whether it had been shouted at him or not
(my bolding)

And of course one might dispute whether it was really "well-known", since the significance had to be explained in the police correspondance, a sure sign that the receiver could not be expected to know about it. But certainly well-known in the East End.

Are you not aware of the reports that the police traced the pipe man?

They must therefore have established that he wasn't Jewish, because if they had done so, that would then have meant that they would have had a reason to suspect that the insult was directed at him.

But there is no record of his being found to be Jewish.

Instead, there is a record that Kosminski testified that the insult was directed at him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why does being semi drunk, as you put it exclude a suspect.
I believe it was Reid who said he believed the killer frequented local pubs and drank.

In addition of all the known Witnesses only Schwartz witnesses a woman actually being attacked.


My reasons for going with Schwartz are well documented in the podcasts section of this site. Why not listen to it?

Nine reasons for eliminating Kosminski as the suspect seen by Schwarz:


(1) The suspect was about seven years older than Kosminski

(2) Kosminski, as a religious Jew, would not have frequented pubs

(3) It is and was well-known that cases of Jews displaying drunkenness in public were unheard-of

(4) The exclamation 'Lipski' made by the suspect was, as noted by Abberline, an anti-Jewish insult, and it is unthinkable that Jews would have directed it at one another

(5) The exclamation was indeed directed at Schwarz, a fact which Schwarz himself confirmed in his inquest testimony

(6) It is therefore reasonable to conclude - as Abberline did - that the remark was made on account of Schwarz's Jewish appearance

(7) The suspect was broad-shouldered, whereas Kosminski was thin

(8) Schwarz did not say that the suspect was a foreigner.

He could reasonably have been expected to tell the difference between a native and an immigrant.

There is a difference between the way a British person would have pronounced 'Lipski' and the way a Polish person would have pronounced it - specifically the way in which the two 'i's would have been pronounced.

Being from Eastern Europe himself, Schwarz would have been aware of that.


(9) Religious Jews did not associate with prostitutes in Whitechapel

[S.Brett]

Anything is possible. Don't know if you heard my talk last year, but I give my reasoning for Schwartz, honestly I.prefer Levy over Lawende
Hope you are well.

Steve

Of course, I heard your talk. It was great.

I am quite well, thanks.

[Varqm]

We will on this occassion disagree. But such is fine, we are discussion unknowns, there are no right or wrong answers .

I suspect Baxter would like to test the man himself, given how he dealt with the police. The mortuary staff, the slaughter men and the doctors in the Nichols and Chapman cases.

The key differences are a pipe or a knife and if the woman is pulled onto the pavement, or pushed back towards the gates.

The consensus appears to be that the differences are in the main due to translation.
I however, also consider that the press are attempting to sell a story.

Oh for Baxter' s long lost notes.

The difference in the 2 stories was more than that,the translation problem I doubt.But I end there.

[Elamarna]

I believe they did include him as an inquest witness,after all he was the most important witness but the Coroner had a different view.The only known reason the Coroner possibly thought so was his statement to the police and to the Star were vastly different.Can't have a witness with two different stories

We will on this occassion disagree. But such is fine, we are discussion unknowns, there are no right or wrong answers .

I suspect Baxter would like to test the man himself, given how he dealt with the police. The mortuary staff, the slaughter men and the doctors in the Nichols and Chapman cases.

The key differences are a pipe or a knife and if the woman is pulled onto the pavement, or pushed back towards the gates.

The consensus appears to be that the differences are in the main due to translation.
I however, also consider that the press are attempting to sell a story.

Oh for Baxter' s long lost notes.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But he wasn't the main witness so to speak. Both Anderson and Swanson hint that a prosecution could not go ahead without the witnesses testimony. If it could have then surely Anderson and Swanson would not have been so disparaging that the witness refused to testify.
In the case of the 1876 trial the defendant Issac Marks, Lawende was not a prime witness. Marks handed himself in and pleaded insanity with Lawende being a witness for the defence on Marks strange behavior.
The two cases are highly distinct.

Regards Darryl

Thanks Darryl, that's a very relevant and interesting post, cheers.

[Varqm]

It's clear from.internal.police documents, Swanson, Abberline and Anderson that they did not consider Schwartz unreliable.
And that is after the inquest is concluded.

So his exclusion remains a mystery

Steve

I believe they did include him as an inquest witness,after all he was the most important witness but the Coroner had a different view.The only known reason the Coroner possibly thought so was his statement to the police and to the Star were vastly different.Can't have a witness with two different stories