The Bell Club incident, and the 1887 attack on Aaron Abrahams

[seanr]

Hi Seanr, I looked at exactly the same thing too.
I came to the conclusion that the mention of Mrs Sarah Lewis was a misprint as in other accounts I found it was a Mrs Levy who was mentioned as owner of the house and she let out the back room. The front of the house (also said to be No 13 in some accounts) was a restaurant. I managed to trace George Brooke at 2 Eliza Place Hoxton, the address given for him in reports, but Mr Ernstein was difficult to pinpoint.

I also came across the 'Oriental working men's club' at Vine Court. Most men reported on during one particular incident there had Jewish sounding names.

I can definitely imagine how Sarah Levy might be misheard by a slightly inattentive journalist or editior as Sarah Lewis.

The Birmingham Mail article mentions numbers 11, 12 and 13. The raid being on number 11, the men inside trying to escape via number 12 and the charge relating to the use of number 13 as a common gaming house. Perhaps numbers 11, 12 and 13 Fieldgate Street were directly connected to each-other.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If Aaron Abrahams was indeed Aaron Kosminski (which seems likely) then this would be the first and only known documented incident in which Kosminski attacked a women in the street.



Paddy Chris

Your statement is completely without foundation.

It is unjustified on two grounds.

First, you say that it is likely that the Aaron Abrahams in the report is the same person as Aaron Kosminski.

Do you know how common the name Aaron Abrahams was?

(1) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Whitechapel in 1900.
(2) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Saffron Walden in 1843.
(3) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Whitechapel in 1851.
(4) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Whitechapel in 1858.
(5) An Aaron Abrahams was born in East London in 1858.
(6) An Aaron Abrahams died in East London in 1860.
(7) An Aaron Abrahams died in St Martin in the Fields in 1846.
(8) An Aaron Abrahams died in Whitechapel in 1855.
(9) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Saffron Walden in 1882.
(10) An Aaron Abrahams died in St George in the East in the first quarter of 1885.
(11) An Aaron Abrahams died in St George in the East in the second quarter of 1885.
(12) An Aaron Abrahams was married in Mile End in 1899.
(13) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Whitechapel in 1905.
(14) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Whitechapel in 1908.
(15) An Aaron Abrahams died in Whitechapel in 1923.
(16) An Aaron Abrahams was married in Stepney in 1937.
(17) An Aaron Abrahams died in Paddington in 1927.
(18) An Aaron Abrahams was born in Hackney in 1907.
(19) An Aaron Abrahams was born in London City in 1908.
(20) An Aaron Abrahams died in Whitechapel in 1917.

There is no reason to suppose that the Aaron Abrahams in that report was Aaron Kosminski.

Secondly, you have no right to deduce from that report that the Aaron Abrahams in question assaulted a woman.

The man who alleged that Abrahams assaulted a woman was the defendant in the trial.

Abrahams was not charged with any offence.

The police obviously did not find the defendant's allegation credible.

The question is: why do you?

For someone who was recommended to me by Steve Blomer as one of the foremost experts on this subject and whose books are, according to him, required reading, you seem to show a remarkable readiness to believe the worst of the Jews of Whitechapel - and on the flimsiest of evidence.

You wrote that it is likely that one Aaron Abrahams was Aaron Kosminski, that the same Aaron Abrahams assaulted a woman, both of which statements are demonstrably false, and that you would then be entitled to deduce that the woman in question was assaulted by Aaron Kosminski - a total fallacy.

I quote Steve Blomer:

Well maybe having a read of Malcolm, House or even My chapter in the pen and sword book who was Jack the Ripper, would prevent such factual faults.

(Elamarna, # 22, Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”)

I wonder what he would recommend you to read to prevent your factual faults.

[Scott Nelson]

#1, 6, 7 to 11, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are irrelevant. Now if you'll forgive me, I'll have to consult with your two subordinates, Private Investigator 2 and Private Investigator 3 about some of your other allegations.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

#1, 6, 7 to 11, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are irrelevant. Now if you'll forgive me, I'll have to consult with your two subordinates, Private Investigator 2 and Private Investigator 3 about some of your other allegations.

They are not irrelevant; they show how common the name was.

Perhaps you could consult with Rob House and then tell me whether he still says that it is likely that that Aaron Abrahams was Aaron Kosminski, and also that the same Aaron Abrahams assaulted a woman.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They are not irrelevant; they show how common the name was.

Perhaps you could consult with Rob House and then tell me whether he still says that it is likely that that Aaron Abrahams was Aaron Kosminski, and also that the same Aaron Abrahams assaulted a woman.

I would also draw your attention to my # 493 in reply to your # 6 in the thread The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[rjpalmer]

They are not irrelevant; they show how common the name was.

Hi P.I.

Let me begin by saying that I too have doubts that the Aaron Abrahams in the 1887 incident is Aaron Kosminski. I also agree that it is far from clear what happened--whether Abrahams was the aggressor and had actually assaulted the woman or was merely defending his friend during some sort of 'shake down.'

That said, I think Scott Nelson is making a valid point. You're basically making a statistical argument about the commonness of the name, but it is highly likely that some of the Aaron Abrahams on your list are the same person. In other words, you're counting them more than once. Other names are irrelevant to the actual question at hand, so you are running the risk of being accused of padding your numbers.

For instance, depending on the depth and sophistication of your research, the Aaron Abrahams born in 1851 (or 1858) might be the same Aaron Abrahams who married in Mile End in 1899 or had died in 1923. If this is true, or possibly true, then you're demonstrating how many Aaron Abrahams there were in East London by counting the same man three times.

A fairer way to go about it would be to determine how many men of that name lived in the East End at the time of the 1887 incident. Currently, there is not enough information to give this number with any certainty, but I think there were 3 or 4. Possibly more, but not proven.

I can't read Rob House's mind, but I imagine he would argue that of these 3-5 men, only one of them has any historical precedent for us believing that they disliked women or prostitutes in particular--Aaron "Abrahams" Kosminski. So, if I'm right, this is why he might have considered Kosminski a more probable guess.

So, while I too have doubts, we should strive for a coherent assessment of the facts, rather than to aggressively argue for or against a position. If we do otherwise, we run the risk of being accused of "cooking the books."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi P.I.

Let me begin by saying that I too have doubts that the Aaron Abrahams in the 1887 incident is Aaron Kosminski. I also agree that it is far from clear what happened--whether Abrahams was the aggressor and had actually assaulted the woman or was merely defending his friend during some sort of 'shake down.'

That said, I think Scott Nelson is making a valid point. You're basically making a statistical argument about the commonness of the name, but it is highly likely that some of the Aaron Abrahams on your list are the same person. In other words, you're counting them more than once. Other names are irrelevant to the actual question at hand, so you are running the risk of being accused of padding your numbers.

For instance, depending on the depth and sophistication of your research, the Aaron Abrahams born in 1851 (or 1858) might be the same Aaron Abrahams who married in Mile End in 1899 or had died in 1923. If this is true, or possibly true, then you're demonstrating how many Aaron Abrahams there were in East London by counting the same man three times.

A fairer way to go about it would be to determine how many men of that name lived in the East End at the time of the 1887 incident. Currently, there is not enough information to give this number with any certainty, but I think there were 3 or 4. Possibly more, but not proven.

I can't read Rob House's mind, but I imagine he would argue that of these 3-5 men, only one of them has any historical precedent for us believing that they disliked women or prostitutes in particular--Aaron "Abrahams" Kosminski. So, if I'm right, this is why he might have considered Kosminski a more probable guess.

So, while I too have doubts, we should strive for a coherent assessment of the facts, rather than to aggressively argue for or against a position. If we do otherwise, we run the risk of being accused of "cooking the books."

I was aware of the possibility of duplication when I posted the list.

My defence is that I cannot know where or even whether there is duplication.

I therefore listed the first 20 Aaron Kosminskis.

I think there may have been even more.

I would suggest that the fact that I have been able to find records of 20 + Aaron Kosminskis supports my contention that it was a common name.

I also agree that it is far from clear what happened--whether Abrahams was the aggressor and had actually assaulted the woman or was merely defending his friend during some sort of 'shake down.'

I agree that it is far from clear what happened, but as I pointed out, the police did not charge Aaron Abrahams.

It is therefore nothing more than conjecture that Abrahams assaulted a woman.

In order for Aaron Kosminski to have assaulted that woman, two conjectures are required to be true: that the Aaron Abrahams in question was Aaron Kosminski and that he assaulted the woman in question.

That is obviously farfetched.

Rob House claims that it is likely that the Aaron Abrahams in question was Aaron Kosminski.

That is obviously not correct.

Even if your estimate of four Aaron Kosminskis were correct, that does not entitle anyone to say that it is LIKELY that the Aaron Abrahams mentioned was Aaron Kosminski.

As one cannot say it in likely that Abrahams was Kosminski and there is no evidence that Abrahams assaulted a woman, there is no reason to suggest that Kosminski assaulted a woman.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It looks like cheizer. The only guess I could come up with--and it's a rude one--is a corruption of chazir.

Chazir (pronounced kha-ZIR) is Hebrew for “pig.” This word appears in the Five Books of Moses when the verses list the non-kosher animals. A pig or a greedy person. Derogatory.

From what I read, the standard term for a person thus employed was shabbes goy:

A “Shabbes Goy” is a non-Jew who does things that a religiously observant Jew cannot do, in such a way that the Jewish person in question might benefit from it. They will be paid for these services.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Roger.

KHA-zer (the Yiddish derivative of the Hebrew kha-ZIR) would have been used only to suggest that someone was greedy, which seems unlikely in the case of someone being prepared to accept 1/6 in return for her labour.

It would never have been used in Yiddish as an abusive pejorative, as it has been in German.

The word you are having difficulty in deciphering is, I believe, Chrizer or Chrizen.

My own guess is that it has something to do with the women in question being Christians, and may possibly be a corruption of Christen.

[rjpalmer]

The consensus among several people is that the word is a badly rendered "shiksa"--which I agree with. A Jewish word for a gentile woman, meant to be somewhat offensive.

Phillip Roth used the word in his novels. It didn't occur to me at the time, but the context sounds correct.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The consensus among several people is that the word is a badly rendered "shiksa"--which I agree with. A Jewish word for a gentile woman, meant to be somewhat offensive.

Phillip Roth used the word in his novels. It didn't occur to me at the time, but the context sounds correct.

Thanks for your reply, Roger, and the update, but I am afraid your sources are mistaken.

You see, the word shikse, or schikse, cannot have an r or n at the end, either in the singular or plural, as the word in the note has.

In the singular, it would end in e and in the plural in s.

Furthermore, there would be sch at the beginning in a German transcription and sh at the beginning in an English transcription, whereas the spelling in the note was ch.

I would add that in order for the word to be intended to mean schikse, it would have to contain a k or ck, whereas it clearly contains a z.

I still say that the word is either chrizer or chrizen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you're absolutely right, Roger. The word is clearly "chiczer", being an obvious attempt to phonetically record the word "shiksa". There can't be any doubt about it

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think you're absolutely right, Roger. The word is clearly "chiczer", being an obvious attempt to phonetically record the word "shiksa". There can't be any doubt about it

That is obviously wrong.

The third letter is clearly an r and not, as you claim, an i.

The fourth letter is clearly an i and not, as you claim, a c.

No-one would, as you suggest, begin the transcription of shikse with ch unless transcribing the word into French.

No-one would use a z to transcribe the s in Shikse.

It would make no sense, as it would change the pronunciation of the word.

You are completely and obviously wrong about this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is obviously wrong.

The third letter is clearly an r and not, as you claim, an i.

The fourth letter is clearly an i and not, as you claim, a c.

No-one would, as you suggest, begin the transcription of shikse with ch unless transcribing the word into French.

No-one would use a z to transcribe the s in Shikse.

It would make no sense, as it would change the pronunciation of the word.

You are completely and obviously wrong about this.

Thanks for posting that image PI. It helps to show that it's clearly "chiczer". A perfectly understandable phonetic transcription of the Yiddish word commonly written as "shiksa".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for posting that image PI. It helps to show that it's clearly "chiczer". A perfectly understandable phonetic transcription of the Yiddish word commonly written as "shiksa".

That's impossible.

The word in the note was, as Roger Palmer made clear from the start, a plural.

The plural of shikse is shikses.

The word used in the note does not end in an s.

Therefore, contrary to your assertion, it cannot have any connection with shikse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's impossible.

The word in the note was, as Roger Palmer made clear from the start, a plural.

The plural of shikse is shikses.

The word used in the note does not end in an s.

Therefore, contrary to your assertion, it cannot have any connection with shikse.

And shiksas were English (gentile) charwomen and washerwomen who worked for Jews on the Sabbath as described in the notebook. That much is certain and beyond doubt.

They were called "shiksa".

It's a perfectly understandable way of expressing oneself.

I'm glad we've finally got that sorted.