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

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the person who wrote the note was English and was responsible for the spelling of the word, why could he not even make out the letters of the word?

If that question had made any sense I would have answered it but, as it doesn't, I won't.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Truly the daftest thing you've written so far in this thread.

The person writing the note would have been English.

You must understand that he was rendering a phonetic transcription of a strange foreign word he'd obviously never heard before.

If you don't understand that, you're not competent to be discussing this subject. If you do understand it, you're arguing in pure bad faith.

If the person who wrote the note was English and was responsible for the spelling of the word, why could he not even make out the letters of the word?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no Yiddish word 'chiczer'.

There is not even a character representing 'ch' (as in English 'church') in the Yiddish language.

As I said, you are completely out of your depth.

You wrote mistakenly that the word supplied in the image came directly from the writer, but the writer couldn't even decipher it.

His best attempt was: 'They are called “chi-z-er” (?)'

Whoever originally wrote the word was not writing an English transcription but a German transcription, which was common at that time.

The correct transcription of the plural of 'shikse' into German would have been 'Schikses' or 'Schickses', which is nothing like your 'chiczer'.

Truly the daftest thing you've written so far in this thread.

The person writing the note would have been English.

You must understand that he was rendering a phonetic transcription of a strange foreign word he'd obviously never heard before.

If you don't understand that, you're not competent to be discussing this subject. If you do understand it, you're arguing in pure bad faith.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Tell you what, why don't you go off and work out what Yiddish word it could be, and perhaps report back to us in a few years time as to how you are getting on.

Best of luck!

There is no Yiddish word 'chiczer'.

There is not even a character representing 'ch' (as in English 'church') in the Yiddish language.

As I said, you are completely out of your depth.

You wrote mistakenly that the word supplied in the image came directly from the writer, but the writer couldn't even decipher it.

His best attempt was: 'They are called “chi-z-er” (?)'

Whoever originally wrote the word was not writing an English transcription but a German transcription, which was common at that time.

The correct transcription of the plural of 'shikse' into German would have been 'Schikses' or 'Schickses', which is nothing like your 'chiczer'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from the fact that you cannot produce any evidence that the word shikse had ever been rendered as chiczer, there is the fact that chiczer could not have been used to describe non-Jewish charwomen because the plural of shikse is shikses and it is evident that the word in the facsimile does not end in an s.

Tell you what, why don't you go off and work out what Yiddish word it could be, and perhaps report back to us in a few years time as to how you are getting on.

Best of luck!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The evidence is where I said it was.

You're asking the wrong question in any case.

The correct question is: What Yiddish word could have been used to describe non-Jewish charwomen and washerwoman who worked for Jews on the Sabbath?

Once you've worked out the answer to that (very simple) question, this entire unfathomable mystery that you are finding so difficult to solve will suddenly become clear to you.

Apart from the fact that you cannot produce any evidence that the word shikse had ever been rendered as chiczer, there is the fact that chiczer could not have been used to describe non-Jewish charwomen because the plural of shikse is shikses and it is evident that the word in the facsimile does not end in an s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I mean actual evidence that your hypothetical word chiczer has ever been used instead of shikse or shikses.

The facsimile of the word in the note is not evidence of chiczer ever having been used in that way.

That is merely your opinion.

The evidence is where I said it was.

You're asking the wrong question in any case.

The correct question is: What Yiddish word could have been used to describe non-Jewish charwomen and washerwoman who worked for Jews on the Sabbath?

Once you've worked out the answer to that (very simple) question, this entire unfathomable mystery that you are finding so difficult to solve will suddenly become clear to you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You will find the "actual evidence" in posts #27 and #42 of this thread.

I'm being deadly serious.

I mean actual evidence that your hypothetical word chiczer has ever been used instead of shikse or shikses.

The facsimile of the word in the note is not evidence of chiczer ever having been used in that way.

That is merely your opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

You will find the "actual evidence" in posts #27 and #42 of this thread.

I'm being deadly serious.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't know whether you're trying to be funny, Sherlock, but I reproduced that same image in my # 42.

I asked you: where is the actual evidence that a word chiczer has ever been used to mean shikse ?

I am still waiting for the evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Funnily enough, you can find that evidence in this very thread. Roger posted the image of it being used in #27. Hope that helps.

I tell you what, I’ll even save you the trouble of scrolling through 2 pages.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/kosminski-aaron/801488-the-bell-club-incident-and-the-1887-attack-on-aaron-abrahams?p=803418#post803418

[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 ?

[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]

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]

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