Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[joelhall]

Joel,



I admire you confidence yet ask you to cite your evidence as to why its doubtful.

because noone has provided any evidence for it whatsoever. i do not think im doing them a disservice at all given the social climate of the time which is once again rearing its ugly head... mass immigration with less of the native population in regular work. this works against the idea of integration. in fact it causes much hostility. integration only happens if people want to do it, it cannot be forced onto people.

also living in the same area is not integration. again referring to peterborough, lincoln road is a good example. so is the example given of ex-pats in spain. there may be different groups in the same locale but this is not integrating.

'Even if thats true the attempt would have been phonetic.'

maybe, but this is not helpful if you try to read the language phonetically when it is written by someone in their mother-tongue. if youve ever tried to pronounce these words as written with english pronunciation youll see what i mean.

'For, with, its not important. The important thing is that she would have communicated and would most likely have been aware of certain yiddish phrases. I defy anyone who works with people of another culture, religion etc not to pick something up with regards to their lifestyle, religion, language etc.'

its a very important distinction. for means working alone, receiving instructions, likely in english as she was english. so she could understand them. with means alongside, in a mixed environment, at the same level. it is well to be accurate in meaning when looking for evidence. in taking on an english women its extremely doubtful theyd speak to her in their own language, as she wouldnt have a clue what they meant. working for rather than with, shed only have heard their conversations which didnt include her. working alongside, there would have been a common factor allowing some degree of understanding. this is how foreign phrases are picked up.

also i can say with experience not picking up language, lifestyle, etc does happen. though again you refer to working with and not for. its an important difference.

'The Jews may well have segregated themselves, mainly out of the fact that the British populace was pointing the finger. Im not addressing that point. Im stating that the assumption the two 'parties' kept away from each other and that the English speaking Eastender would not have know of certain yiddish phrases or words is a false assumption.'

im afraid i have to reiterate, living near to does not mean integrated. they do not have to 'keep away from each other' to be segregated. and to state eastenders not knowing yiddish phrases is an assuption in itself. where i lived there were people from all over the world in close quarters, yet next to noone knew anything of each others cultures.

finally i should point out the classes also followed this segregation practice. the poor boy would sell the toff his newspaper, but i doubt very much he invited the lad to the theatre afterwards. thats the difference between contact and integration.

[Observer]

Hi Chris

Hi Monty

Are we getting our Double Event victims mixed up here? As I recall, it is Elizabeth Stride who is said to have been able to speak Yiddish. As far as I know the same was not said about Eddowes, and nor do I know the story that Eddowes worked with Jews. Is there a reference you can point me to? Thanks in advance.

Chris

And lets not forget that according to Schwartz an anti Semetic insult issued from the mouth of Stride's assailant. Lets say that this man was also Eddowes killer, I wonder if the incident with Stride could have prompted the writing in Goulston Street?

all the best

Observer

[Monty]

Chris,

Eddowes was said to have worked for some Jews, she was merely an example. However, thank you for mentioning Stride as that adds to my point.

Joel,

Interesting post but I feel we are crossing wires. Though Observer sums my point up better than I could.
Monty

[joelhall]

Joel,

Interesting post but I feel we are crossing wires. Though Observer sums my point up better than I could.
Monty

no doubt. seems to get that way here

[Monty]

It does Joel, however you have given me some interesting food for thought so its not all gloom, thank you.

Monty

[Monty]

Eddowes Jewish connection

Chris,

Sorry I didnt reply did I?

Lodging house keeper Frederick Wilkinson inquest testimony.

Monty

[Observer]

Hi Chava

In the East End, I think it's certain that some Yiddish words were recognized outside the mainstream of Jewish society.

But the word 'Juwes' ain't one of them! So whether Jack did or did not speak a few words of Yiddish, its relevance to the graffito is nil. The Yiddish word for Jews is 'Yidden'.

Wrong thread for this but

Would I be right in saying that cockney rhyming slang has some Yiddish elements? I think I read that once. Schmuter, is still used in the rag trade. Regardless of Jack having some Yiddish, Stride's assailant knew how to insult them. How long had Schwartz been in the Country? Would he have been aware that Lipski was an insult to Jews? Had he heard the insult before, had he been on the wrong end of a "Lipski"? This one revelation in Schwartz's statement inclines me to believe that he may well have witnessed Stride being attacked.

all the best

Observer

[joelhall]

It does Joel, however you have given me some interesting food for thought so its not all gloom, thank you.

Monty

yeah i have a habit for playing devils advocate. helps to think of things in a way you might ordinarily overlook

[Chava]

Hi Observer!

A bunch of Yiddish words are now found especially in London slang. 'Schmutter' (I would say 'schmatte') means clothing and the schmutter trade is the rag trade. 'Schtum' meaning 'keep quiet'. 'Schmuck' meaning a fool. 'Shikse' meaning a non-Jewish girl is pretty widely known. All those words start with 's'!

I'm sure there are others, but it's hard for me to know what's in general-population English as I grew up in a family that routinely used Yiddish words in English speech so I'm used to many more words than that!

[Chris George]

Hi Chava



Wrong thread for this but

Would I be right in saying that cockney rhyming slang has some Yiddish elements? I think I read that once. Schmuter, is still used in the rag trade. Regardless of Jack having some Yiddish, Stride's assailant knew how to insult them. How long had Schwartz been in the Country? Would he have been aware that Lipski was an insult to Jews? Had he heard the insult before, had he been on the wrong end of a "Lipski"? This one revelation in Schwartz's statement inclines me to believe that he may well have witnessed Stride being attacked.

all the best

Observer

Hello Observer

I think Israel Shwartz almost definitely would have known about the Israel Lipski murder case and events surrounding it. He would have had to have had his head under a rock to not have known about it. I think the Lipski case would have been pretty current conversation in the Jewish community, on its different levels of social strata, both Anglo-Jewish establishment and immigrant Eastern European etc.

All the best

Chris

[perrymason]

Hello Observer

I think Israel Shwartz almost definitely would have known about the Israel Lipski murder case and events surrounding it. He would have had to have had his head under a rock to not have known about it. I think the Lipski case would have been pretty current conversation in the Jewish community, on its different levels of social strata, both Anglo-Jewish establishment and immigrant Eastern European etc.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,

Nice to see you by the way. I wonder if Israel's lack of English would allow him to understand the relevance, unless explained to him in Hungarian. It is interesting that essentially an alley separates the two venues. And a Lodger Story.

As I indicated before, I think the timing of the apron piece's arrival is an essential variable that needs to be reconciled first. If it was close to 3, then both items in that entranceway could have been the work of one man more plausibly.

If he was so incensed at something that he felt the need to punctuate a "handkerchief" with a message, on the way directly from Mitre, one would think it would be clear rather than ambiguous.

But if he dropped it near three, then it may have been used to get organs home first, and it may have been an intentional placement of that apron, and the message then is more realistically tied with him and the apron section. And all the incriminating evidence is off his person as he leaves the apron.

Best regards Chris.

[Chava]

Trust me, Michael, Schwartz would have spoken Yiddish like all the other Jews down there, although he would have spoken Hungarian as well. His neighbours may have come from Poland, Russia, Hungary, Roumania and all points East, but they would have all spoken the same language and the Lipski case would have been well-known and discussed avidly by all of them.

[Jon Guy]

Following the Chapman murder the killer would have been aware of the widely reported rumours of blood stains been found in a neighbouring yard in Hanbury St or the bloodied newspaper found in Baileys yard.He would have been aware of the supposed chalk messages written by the killer that appeared in the vicinty.

The killer would have been aware of the feeling of the locals who gathered around the murder sites, as reported in Lloyds Weekly on the 9th Sept 88 :

The excitement in Hanbury-street and the surrounding neighbourhood still continues, and extra police have been employed to keep a course for the traffic of the evening, but in this they are very much hampered by noisy crowds of men and boys crying "Down with the Jews." Sometimes there is a show of resistance, but the strong force of police on the spot are equal to the occasion, and promptly separate assailants. Just as our correspondent was writing a gang of young vagabonds marched down Hanbury-street shouting "Down with the Jews!" "It was a Jew who did it!" "No Englishman did it!" After these the police were prompt, and whenever there was a stand they quickly, and without ceremony, dispersed them. There have been many fights, but the police are equal to it, as men are held in reserve under cover, and when there is a row they rush out and soon establish order. As the night advances the disorderly mobs who openly express antipathy to the Jews increase, and a request has been forwarded to headquarters for extra men. This request has been promptly attended to, and men have been sent.

In taking half Eddowes apron he was confirming the authorship of the "mis-spelt" message. He could have taken something else from Eddowes to carry or clean with,but he cut her apron and smeared it with blood so that there was no doubt as to the validity of the anti-semitic messages which appeared after the Chapman murder.

The writing was done on the jamb so that it would be seen, and the apron recovered to confirm it`s authorship.

[joelhall]

one wonders if they were other messages/graffitti written by the killer whilst fleeing that might have been missed or ignored...

perhaps this was to claim authorship. seems curious otherwise, except to lead police on the wrong trail?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Following the Chapman murder the killer would have been aware of the widely reported rumours of blood stains been found in a neighbouring yard in Hanbury St or the bloodied newspaper found in Baileys yard.He would have been aware of the supposed chalk messages written by the killer that appeared in the vicinty.

The killer would have been aware of the feeling of the locals who gathered around the murder sites, as reported in Lloyds Weekly on the 9th Sept 88 :

The excitement in Hanbury-street and the surrounding neighbourhood still continues, and extra police have been employed to keep a course for the traffic of the evening, but in this they are very much hampered by noisy crowds of men and boys crying "Down with the Jews." Sometimes there is a show of resistance, but the strong force of police on the spot are equal to the occasion, and promptly separate assailants. Just as our correspondent was writing a gang of young vagabonds marched down Hanbury-street shouting "Down with the Jews!" "It was a Jew who did it!" "No Englishman did it!" After these the police were prompt, and whenever there was a stand they quickly, and without ceremony, dispersed them. There have been many fights, but the police are equal to it, as men are held in reserve under cover, and when there is a row they rush out and soon establish order. As the night advances the disorderly mobs who openly express antipathy to the Jews increase, and a request has been forwarded to headquarters for extra men. This request has been promptly attended to, and men have been sent.

In taking half Eddowes apron he was confirming the authorship of the "mis-spelt" message. He could have taken something else from Eddowes to carry or clean with,but he cut her apron and smeared it with blood so that there was no doubt as to the validity of the anti-semitic messages which appeared after the Chapman murder.

The writing was done on the jamb so that it would be seen, and the apron recovered to confirm it`s authorship.

On the other hand, the message was quite small and if it hadn't been for the apron it is doubtful it would even have been seen or noticed. If the killer wanted to make a written statement, why not write a message that actually makes sense and is less open to personal interpretation? And why write in a neat handwriting so small that he couldn't be absolutely sure of that it would be spotted?Sure, it was its connection with the apron that made it explosive, but that doesn't mean he still couldn't have made the message more clearer in its wording and easier to spot. Alfred Long only managed to spot it because he found the apron and shone the rest of the wall with his bull's eye lantern.
Just because the apron in connection with the anti-Jewish could have sparked antisemtic tension, doesn't mean that it was necessarily related to the murders.

I have to admit I still find it amazing that some people are prepared to buy into the idea that the Ripper, on the run from a murder scene, would stop in a building entrance and waste time by chalking a message in a small neat handwriting and with a meaning that is unclear to say the least, when he once had the opportunity to actually make his mark.
There is nothing in the message itself that points towards it being related to any of the murders. All we know is that the Ripper passed through Goulston Street and dropped the apron. How, why or when the writing was done, or by whom remains a speculation, but I serioulsy doubt that it was connected with the murders at all.

All the best