Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Tom_Wescott]

You are missing the point I brought up that Schwartz was Jewish and he wasn't a member of the club

I wouldn't say that. It's all a matter of Schwartz's veracity. I believe that if he lied it was because he WAS a clubman, which is very possible, though not yet proved. A white woman is murdered in their yard and a Jewish man shows up with a choice of two suspects - an anti-Semite and a tall white man with light brown/reddish hair. Hmmmm. Of course, if Schwartz was telling the truth, which was the impression Abberline received (not Swanson as some say), then we have to consider it along with the other viable evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Naturally my thinking is determined by the books I have read.The latest one,which I have used as a guide to my posts,is supposed to be one of the better ones,and the author,a person endorsed by one of the most respected Ripper researchers,as someone who can be relied on for his trustworthyness and research ability.

Dougie wrote a book?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

A couple of observations to finish my take on what I believe happened,and the conclusions I reach.As Fisherman says of Schwartz,a coward, who fled at the first sign of trouble.A man who obviously from the first moment,thought only of his own safety,and of getting from the scene as quickly as possible.That is what would have occupied his thoughts,yet we have a description of events and persons,that couldn't be betterered,if he had calmly stood in one place and jotted everything to paper.
It is clear that from the account given,he was behind the initial action,and would have been taken by surprise at the suddeness of it.He would not have had,for one second,a clear face on view of either Stride or BS,even if he had looked back on crossing the road.
His attention was then transferred to pipeman emerging from the shadows,and it was at this point from a direction behind him that he heard a word that might have sounded like 'Lipski'.
Then he was away,and the whole episode had occupied twenty seconds at the most,and because he was hurrying ,perhaps only about twelve.
Naturally my thinking is determined by the books I have read.The latest one,which I have used as a guide to my posts,is supposed to be one of the better ones,and the author,a person endorsed by one of the most respected Ripper researchers,as someone who can be relied on for his trustworthyness and research ability.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"You are missing the point I brought up that Schwartz was Jewish and he wasn't a member of the club as any member would have known, and that he was witness to a possible Club-related altercation."

Honestly, Mike - I am not missing a single point you have made on the issue. I am not irreceptive, I am not stupid and I am not prestigious about it, believe you me. I´ve seen these arguments brought to market before, and I did not buy them that time either.

"Things aren't so simple in my world."
And yet, this is how it normally works. "Lipski" remains an very improbable insult in this kind of situation - unless uttered by a gentile.
I am no friend of oversimplification, Mike, even if I find that simplicity is something that is often useful to strive after. Making things more complex than they are is often totally improductive.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

You are missing the point I brought up that Schwartz was Jewish and he wasn't a member of the club as any member would have known, and that he was witness to a possible Club-related altercation. These were reasons enough to dislike him and to get him out of there with a little insult. Schwartz' actual religious beliefs meant nothing. The fact that he wasn't a member means he wasn't welcome. I can't figure out how you can disagree with that. Really. I understand your argument, but it simplifies everything into a black and white world, i.e., Jews wouldn't say such and such to another Jew. Things aren't so simple in my world.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

I won´t tell you what animal your stubborness leads my thoughts too, Mike, save to say that if you had it´s ears, I would much hope for you to make use of them!
You have a few good points, and a few bad ones. They don´t differ from what they were like from the outset. I´ll begin with the good ones, and then you can quit reading if you wish:
Yes, Schwartz looked jewish (then again, jews are semites charing 99,9 per cent of their bilogical heritage with the arabs from the same geographical area, and thus Eagle could well have been dealing with a moslem, physically speaking) and he was unwelcome, just like you say.
Those were your good points. I have recognized them from the outset.
Here are the bad ones:
"Socialist turf", Mike? Are you trying to say that jews with traditional values avoided Berner Street? And if you are, then it would stand to reason that jews that did not live by that bid, were also jews that did not share the traditional values, would it not? Thus Schwartz would have been a socialist jew, since he walked Berner Street. No logic in calling him Lipski, thus.
On the other hand, if you are not saying that jews with traditional values avoided Berner Street, then there must have been some other way in which Eagle decided that Schwartz did not share his ideology. A dress code perhaps? Or a small sign on the forehead, stating "Here goes a Judaist"?

It all crumbles when you scrutinize it, Mike, and that is what I have been saying all along. This was NOT a kind of occasion when it would be in the least logical to yell "Lipski" inbetween jews! Wrong setting altogether.

There are of course other things to discuss here: You write of Schwartz, "who was (in the opinion of the insulter) obviously Jewish". But the fact of the matter is that this interpretation was one that Abberline added to the whole thing. What little we know of the actual scenario does not allow us too safe a guess that Schwartz was the actual target, and therefore we should perhaps be cautious not to present BS mans convictions on Schwartz´looks as a universal truth.

The few things we DO know about them looks of Schwartz, however, tells us that he was kind of poshly dressed, something like what a self-aware actor may have been. And THAT, Mike, means that much as it does not in any way affect the likelyhood that a jew-hater may have yelled away at him in a jew-scorning fashion, Shwartz will have looked nothing like a traditionally thinking jew at all, and therefore the likelyhood that he would have been the target of a jew castigating another jew for representing such values is not there.

...and that is as far as we are going to reach in the issue, I think. It´s not about my disability to understand what you are saying, Mike - it´s about my conviction that you are wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I almost don't wish to go there, because you're as stubborn as a pony, yet,
An atheist radical calling someone 'Lipski' because they looked Jewish and were unknown, and were on socialist turf, makes a lot of sense to me. It isn't about religious difference as much as it was a nasty comment made against someone who wasn't welcome, and who was (in the opinion of the insulter) obviously Jewish.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

The thing I turn against, Rosey, is that insults aimed to question another persons wiew are suggested as having been thrown about REGARDLESS of what wiews that other person (in this case: Schwartz) held.
It´s like calling somebody "you commie scum" or "you friggin´death-sentence activist" without having a scrap of knowledge what that somebody is about, ideologically.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rosey O'Ryan]

"The clubmen despised Judism as a faith and didn't care at all for its practitioners. They are notorious for this. They held feasts with a roasted pig as the centerpiece on the holidays when Jews were fasting. Eagle had just THAT EVENING given a speech on why Jews should be socialist. It would not be at all surprising to see him use an anti-Semitic epithet."- Wescott

Yes it would, Tom. It is one thing to strive towards a more secular society, but quite another to start calling fellow jews "jewish pig", "long-schnaaz" or - "Lipsky". It falters logically, and I must disagree with you totally on the matter.--Fisherman

Uh,Fisherman...you're wrong.

Selbsthass ( self hate in German) is a condition which Jews have and its been manifested throughout history in numerous circumstances,particularly in cases of former religious ( still ethnically ) Judenvolk converting to Christendom. Some of the damaging "blood libel" cases were inspired by "former" Jews to the new religion. Wescott's right.

I also know of less belligerent instances of former Jews castigating their fellow Jew for their Jewishness.

Hi Brownie,
Do not forget their lack of linguistic skills, e.g., "Juwes". Personally I have never met a 'self-hating Jew', but I have met plenty of 'Zionist' who would describe other Jews this way. Its a tribal thing...like the rest of the world, they get p*ssed off with each other. But that don't mean their de killer mon!
Rosey :-)

[Fisherman]

You of course have a point there, Harry; keeping in mind that Schwarts had to give his version of what happened through an interpretor, we must be wary of his testimony.
The thing I have always thought speaks much in favour of Schwartz, though, is that he gives himself the role of a coward, and not very many people who cook up stories do that. I also think that a couple of odd observations point to his story being something that described real-life events. I am referring to the fact that it was mentioned that BS man tried to pull Stride into the street, and that she kept her voice lowered as she cried out. Things like these add a flavour of honesty to the story, at least the way I look upon it.

The best!
Fisherman

[harry]

Mike,
It is a well known fact that a great deal of what witness's say,sometimes turn out to be innacurate.It is also well known that witnesses can be led to give innacurare information by means of suggestion.I have not said that the evidence of Schwartz should be dismissed in its entire'ty,but that the language, time factor,and conditions ,should make it matter of caution.
While I do believe in the presence of BS and Pipeman,and that an altercation between BS and Stride did take place outside Duttfield yard,I am not so ready to believe,as others seem to,the literal truth to be as described by Schwartz,or interpreted by others.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"The Berner Streeters despised Judaism, and that's a fact. If you can't see that that gives them license to use Jewish Epithets, I don't know how to explain it to you. "

Yes, Mike; and if you dont understand that it would be a strange thing to do, even if you were radically opposing Judaism, to hurl a specifically anti-jewish insult at a man of whom you did not even know if he was a jew, let alone have any idea of what convictions he had on the matter, then there is little more that I can do for you, I´m afraid.
I had trouble reading Howard´s recommended article; it came up as very BIG text on my computer, and I could find no way to diminish it. That means I have not been able to take part of the full text. It seems, however, that it referred to the jews in USA, specifically Chicago, and thus it won´t be a hundred percent applicable to our friends in the club-house, I feel.
That does not mean that I don´t know that the clubbers were very much opposed to judaism, though - they were, and there is much evidence left to prove it. I still think that it would be useful to see any relevant stuff from that time and that place showing that derogatory, anti-jewish scorning was something that was used against people of whom the clubbers knew absolutely nothing.
To use such expressions against people whom the clubbers knew were fervent judaists would be another thing, with a lot more sense to it, but I am not all that sure that even such things were recorded when it came to the Berner Street clubmen. And even if it was, it would, as I initially stated, be a totally different thing.

The best, Mike, Howard!
Fisherman

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

Not only is Rabbi's Hirsch's contemporary article a good indicator of the rift in Jewry at that time...but Fisherman might be overlooking the disdain the Assimilated Jewish citizenry of London had for those who were considered 'boat rockers". It wasn't just one clique which disliked the other...it was probably a mutually held feeling... Glad that you, at least,enjoyed the article.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

The Berner Streeters despised Judaism, and that's a fact. If you can't see that that gives them license to use Jewish Epithets, I don't know how to explain it to you. These guys were the antithesis of Zionists. You should read the article that Howard linked to to give you an understanding of the kind of young men that we're dealing with. The article presents them in an even worse light than I thought. Calling someone a name when they felt threatened (just a scenario, mind you) is the very least of what they were capable of. "Lipski" was nothing to them.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"Get a handle on things, please"

I think I have that already, Mike.

"Imagine a Club member (or two) wanting to get rid of a passerby so that he (they) could finish up with Stride. Shouting 'Lipski' is the minimum they would do"

Get a handle on things, Mike (Could´nt resist that one). The LEAST thing they could do, if they wanted to scare Schwartz off and were jews themselves, would NOT be to shout "Lipski". "Get out of here, or I´ll kick your teeth (NOT ´jewish teeth´mind you) in", would be a far simpler and probably just as efficient alternative.
An argumentation like the one you use here, Mike, is not a viable one. You cannot state that a jew calling a fellow jew a name that is derogatory towards jews is the least thing they could do. It would be an anomaly any way you look at it, and I don´t think that anomalies should be preferred over perfectly rational alternatives.

The best!
Fisherman