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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

They were not called shiksa collectively.

They were called shikses.

You are wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They were not called shiksa collectively.

They were called shikses.

You are wrong.

I never said they were. On the contrary, I clearly stated "shiksas were English (gentile) charwomen....".

What I am saying is that it is perfectly understandable for an English person in the 1880s who had never heard the word before to have written in his notebook that they were called "shiksa", with the word in quotation marks.

It may be that you don't understand it but that means nothing.

This is a ludicrous discussion in any case considering that your own incorrect guesses in #38 were "chrizer" or "chrizen" (words which don't even exist) as some form of bizarre corruption of "Christen" which can only mean "Christian", singular!!!

The word in question is "chiczer", being shiska, and it's just not worth continuing this pointless debate with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This is a ludicrous discussion in any case considering that your own incorrect guesses in #38 were "chrizer" or "chrizen" (words which don't even exist) as some form of bizarre corruption of "Christen" which can only mean "Christian", singular!!!

The word in question is "chiczer", being shiska, and it's just not worth continuing this pointless debate with you.

You really are out of your depth, aren't you, Herlock?

Christen is NOT singular.

Christen is plural!

I did not guess that the word in the note is chrizer or chrizen.

It IS.

I have spent hundreds of hours deciphering German handwriting during research and I had no difficulty in deciphering that word, except that one cannot be certain whether the last letter is an n or r without seeing other examples of the writer's handwriting.

It is obvious from your ludicrous reading of the word in the note as chiczer that you have never read German documents.

Mr Bowsher (anglicised spelling of the German name Bauscher) could have told you that the German transcription of shikse would have been Schikse or Schickse, and certainly not your chiczer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really are out of your depth, aren't you, Herlock?

Christen is NOT singular.

Christen is plural!

I did not guess that the word in the note is chrizer or chrizen.

It IS.

I have spent hundreds of hours deciphering German handwriting during research and I had no difficulty in deciphering that word, except that one cannot be certain whether the last letter is an n or r without seeing other examples of the writer's handwriting.

It is obvious from your ludicrous reading of the word in the note as chiczer that you have never read German documents.

Mr Bowsher (anglicised spelling of the German name Bauscher) could have told you that the German transcription of shikse would have been Schikse or Schickse, and certainly not your chiczer.

But the word in the notebook isn't "christen," is it? You are suggesting it could be "chrizer". How is that a plural of anything? And what is "chrizen". You've just made that one up! In fact, you've made them both up.

The fact of the matter is that there is no other word that fits here.


Christians in general would have been called "goyim" by Jews of the East End. A goy could have been used to do menial tasks on the Sabbath but we're talking about women here, so the correct and only word that fits is "shiksa".

Shiksa can quite easily be phonetically transcribed as "chiczer" (chic-zer).

The person who wrote the notebook was very much British and wasn't writing in German so your supposed superior knowledge of German gets you nowhere.

This is the most obvious and easily answered "mystery" in the history of Ripperology.

While I appreciate that you don't like being you're told you wrong, you really do need to suck it up and take the L on this one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

But the word in the notebook isn't "christen," is it? You are suggesting it could be "chrizer". How is that a plural of anything? And what is "chrizen". You've just made that one up! In fact, you've made them both up.


If you knew some German, you would know that -er and -en are German plural endings.

I did not make up Chrizer or Chrizen.

The word in the note is one or the other.


The source we have is:

I had often wondered whence came all the work for the widowed charwomen and washerwomen. According to Mr. Bowsher many of them work for the Jews on the sabbath at 1/6 for a day’s work. They are called “chi-z-er” (?)


Whoever wrote that mis-read chrizer or chrizen as chizer.



The fact of the matter is that there is no other word that fits here.


Christians in general would have been called "goyim" by Jews of the East End. A goy could have been used to do menial tasks on the Sabbath but we're talking about women here, so the correct and only word that fits is "shiksa".

Shiksa can quite easily be phonetically transcribed as "chiczer" (chic-zer).


That is nonsense.

It is impossible.

The only language in which the English sh sound is represented by ch is French.

There is no letter c in the middle of the word in the note.

The s in Shikse cannot be transcribed as z in any language because the latter would change the sound of it.

The i is not, as you think, over the third letter of the word, but over the fourth!

You are making basic mistakes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

This really is the height of nonsense.

When Mr Bowsher told the Booth notetaker what the women "are called", he obviously meant by the Jews of the East End who, collectively, spoke Yiddish. You are aware that they spoke Yiddish, right?

They wouldn't have collectively been using a German word (especially not one which didn't exist i.e. "chrizer" or "chrizen").

They already had a perfectly good word which they would have used for Christians, or gentiles, which was goyim. And, indeed, a "Shabbos goy" was specifically a non-Jew who did work for Jews on the Sabbath.

But, as Mr Bowsher was specifically talking about women, the appropriate word would have been "shiksa".

You admit, as you must do, that the word in question is NOT "christen" or "christer" which are both, in any case, German words, not Yiddish.

You, yourself, cannot even identify what word you think is there. It's either this or that which is a corruption of something else in a language that wouldn't have been used collectively by the Jewish community in the East End and which, by simply meaning "Christian", without specifying gender, wouldn't have made sense in the context it was being used.

It's just nonsense.

In "shiksa" we have a word that it is in Yiddish and which fits perfectly what Mr Bowsher was saying. He would have said to the note-taker something like, "The Jews pay a woman who is called a shiksa on the Sabbath to do their char and washing work".

The notetaker, hearing it for the first time in his life, would have done his best to capture and transcribe that word. "chiczer" is a perfectly respectable attempt.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the English word "chic". How does one pronounce it? It's like "shik" in "shiksa"

And then take the name "Pizer" (as in Leather Apron) which is also represented as "Piser". The "zer" or "ser" sound is exactly the same as the "sa" of shiksa (which can also be represented as shikseh).

Chic and zer is chiczer which sounds like shiksa.

The dot is in the right place to make the third character an "i".

All your objections are met. You've obviously messed up, and surely know it, but are now too afraid to admit it.

In fact, here's a test for you to see if you are prepared to admit obvious facts:

Do you agree that, in the context of the Booth notebook, discussing charwomen and washermen who worked for Jews on the Sabbath, the Yiddish word "shiska" fits perfectly as a description for that type of woman?


I'm really looking forward to your answer to that question or, with just as much anticipation, you ducking it and never being brave enough to respond to it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the English word "chic". How does one pronounce it? It's like "shik" in "shiksa"


That is not a valid point.

Chic is a French word, not an English word.

English people would not have used ch to transcribe a sh sound from a foreign language.



And then take the name "Pizer" (as in Leather Apron) which is also represented as "Piser". The "zer" or "ser" sound is exactly the same as the "sa" of shiksa (which can also be represented as shikseh).


That is quite incorrect.

The two sounds are different, like the difference in English between the pronunciation of z and ss.



Chic and zer is chiczer which sounds like shiksa.


It does not.

Ch and sh sound differently from one another in English and the s in shikse sounds differently from an English z.

It sounds like the English ss.



The dot is in the right place to make the third character an "i".


It cannot make the third character an i.

The third character is clearly an r.



All your objections are met. You've obviously messed up, and surely know it, but are now too afraid to admit it.


On the contrary.

You are continuing to make basic linguistic errors.



In fact, here's a test for you to see if you are prepared to admit obvious facts:

Do you agree that, in the context of the Booth notebook, discussing charwomen and washermen who worked for Jews on the Sabbath, the Yiddish word "shiska" fits perfectly as a description for that type of woman?


It does not.

The word was more likely to have been used to refer to young women than women of no particular age.



I'm really looking forward to your answer to that question or, with just as much anticipation, you ducking it and never being brave enough to respond to it.


The ch in the note represents a kh or k sound if it is a German transcription from Yiddish.

If it is a transcription from Yiddish into English, then the initial sound is English ch and not sh.

If the sound was sh then no-one would have transcribed it as ch unless transcribing it into French.

You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

It is unlikely that anyone would have transcribed the s in shikse as a z, as they are pronounced very differently.

The word in the note is obviously a plural, as indicated by its context, ending in the German plural ending -er or -en.

It cannot be shikse because the word shikse changes to shikses in its plural form.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

Oh right, I see the problem now. You don't understand Yiddish or English.


Here's 3 dictionary definitions of shiksa:


Oxford English Dictionary: "a non-Jewish girl or woman, a female Gentile"

Merriam-Webster: "non-Jewish girl or woman"

Dictionary.com: "a girl or woman who is not Jewish"


It applies, in other words, to a female of any age. That's what Mr Bowsher was communicating to the Booth notetaker. The Jews get a female non-Jew to do the work on the Sabbath. The only possible Yiddish word that fits here is "shiksa".

And you are entirely wrong about "chic". It's an English word meaning stylishly elegant and sophisticated. It has a foreign (French) etymology like many words in the English language but it is unquestionably an English word found in every English dictionary. Try looking it up!

I think we're done here.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oh right, I see the problem now. You don't understand Yiddish or English.


Here's 3 dictionary definitions of shiksa:


Oxford English Dictionary: "a non-Jewish girl or woman, a female Gentile"

Merriam-Webster: "non-Jewish girl or woman"

Dictionary.com: "a girl or woman who is not Jewish"


It applies, in other words, to a female of any age. That's what Mr Bowsher was communicating to the Booth notetaker. The Jews get a female non-Jew to do the work on the Sabbath. The only possible Yiddish word that fits here is "shiksa".

And you are entirely wrong about "chic". It's an English word meaning stylishly elegant and sophisticated. It has a foreign (French) etymology like many words in the English language but it is unquestionably an English word found in every English dictionary. Try looking it up!

I think we're done here.

As I stated, the word shikse could have been used to refer to females in general, but was more commonly used in reference to young women.


I repeat the points I made in my last post:


The ch in the note represents a kh or k sound if it is a German transcription from Yiddish.

If it is a transcription from Yiddish into English, then the initial sound is English ch and not sh.

If the sound was sh then no-one would have transcribed it as ch unless transcribing it into French.

You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

It is unlikely that anyone would have transcribed the s in shikse as a z, as they are pronounced very differently.

The word in the note is obviously a plural, as indicated by its context, ending in the German plural ending -er or -en.

It cannot be shikse because the word shikse changes to shikses in its plural form.

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


You have not answered any of them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I stated, the word shikse could have been used to refer to females in general, but was more commonly used in reference to young women.


I repeat the points I made in my last post:


The ch in the note represents a kh or k sound if it is a German transcription from Yiddish.

If it is a transcription from Yiddish into English, then the initial sound is English ch and not sh.

If the sound was sh then no-one would have transcribed it as ch unless transcribing it into French.

You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

It is unlikely that anyone would have transcribed the s in shikse as a z, as they are pronounced very differently.

The word in the note is obviously a plural, as indicated by its context, ending in the German plural ending -er or -en.

It cannot be shikse because the word shikse changes to shikses in its plural form.

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


You have not answered any of them.

In fact, I've already dealt with every single one. You're just repeating things that have already been debunked, and talking pure nonsense in the bargain. I'm not prepared to go round in circles with you on this minor but very straightforward interpretation of handwriting.

We're done here.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In fact, I've already dealt with every single one. You're just repeating things that have already been debunked, and talking pure nonsense in the bargain. I'm not prepared to go round in circles with you on this minor but very straightforward interpretation of handwriting.

We're done here.

Any reader can see you haven't dealt with them.

For example:

You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

You haven't dealt with those two points - because you cannot.

It is quite obvious how the writer of the note wrote the letter c.

And it is quite obvious that the fourth letter of that note is not a c.

The fifth letter, a z, is joined to the preceding letter by a line from its left which runs into the very beginning of the letter z.

If the fourth letter were a c, as you claim, the same thing would happen.

But it does not - because it is an i, and not a c.

These are basic facts about writing during that period, and ones which you neglect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any reader can see you haven't dealt with them.

For example:

You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

You haven't dealt with those two points - because you cannot.

It is quite obvious how the writer of the note wrote the letter c.

And it is quite obvious that the fourth letter of that note is not a c.

The fifth letter, a z, is joined to the preceding letter by a line from its left which runs into the very beginning of the letter z.

If the fourth letter were a c, as you claim, the same thing would happen.

But it does not - because it is an i, and not a c.

These are basic facts about writing during that period, and ones which you neglect.

I've dealt with your ridiculous points time and time again. Just as one example, in #51 I posted "The dot is in the right place to make the third character an "i"". I have no wish to continue repeating myself.

The image speaks for itself and anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up about the characters, using their own eyes. Your own eyes don't seem to be working properly, so there's no much point continuing to debate this subject with you.

Roger believes it's chiczer and other people, he tells us, have said the same thing to him. There isn't anything else it can be.

Seriously PI, we are done here

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As I stated previously, any reader can see you haven't dealt with them.


You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

It is quite obvious how the writer of the note wrote the letter c.

And it is quite obvious that the fourth letter of that note is not a c.

The fifth letter, a z, is joined to the preceding letter by a line from its left which runs into the very beginning of the letter z.

If the fourth letter were a c, as you claim, the same thing would happen.

But it does not - because it is an i, and not a c.

For these reasons, and others stated in previous posts, the word in the note cannot be chiczer, as you claim.

In particular, no-one would have used ch instead of sh, except in France, and no-one would have used a z instead of an s in any country.


You are simply wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I stated previously, any reader can see you haven't dealt with them.


You have misidentified the third letter of the word in the note as an i when it is obviously an r.

You have misidentified the fourth letter as a c when it is obviously not a c, as anyone can see by comparing it with the first letter, which obviously is a c.

It is quite obvious how the writer of the note wrote the letter c.

And it is quite obvious that the fourth letter of that note is not a c.

The fifth letter, a z, is joined to the preceding letter by a line from its left which runs into the very beginning of the letter z.

If the fourth letter were a c, as you claim, the same thing would happen.

But it does not - because it is an i, and not a c.

For these reasons, and others stated in previous posts, the word in the note cannot be chiczer, as you claim.

In particular, no-one would have used ch instead of sh, except in France, and no-one would have used a z instead of an s in any country.


You are simply wrong.

Well PI, it's a funny thing, I've just been alerted to this thread on JTR Forums which you might find of interest:

Houndsditch Day by Day - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

Houndsditch Day by Day - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology F... I hope this isn’t considered anti-Semitic in any way. This column ran in the Sporting Times back in the day and ...

The word in question was identified as "chiczer" over a month ago, with agreement from others who posted in the thread.


Funny how everyone agrees that it's "chiczer", while no one agrees with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well PI, it's a funny thing, I've just been alerted to this thread on JTR Forums which you might find of interest:

Houndsditch Day by Day - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

Houndsditch Day by Day - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology F... I hope this isn’t considered anti-Semitic in any way. This column ran in the Sporting Times back in the day and ...

The word in question was identified as "chiczer" over a month ago, with agreement from others who posted in the thread.


Funny how everyone agrees that it's "chiczer", while no one agrees with you.

Where is the actual evidence that a word chiczer has ever been used to mean shikse ?