Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"The clubmen dispised 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."

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.

"That's fine if BS Man was her killer, but if the evidence suggests other possibilities (such as Pipeman or OJ Simpson), then we should see where those possibilities lead. It's too easy just to go with the simple conclusion that it was BS Man simply because he pulled her around a tad."

This is another thing altogether! I most sincerely agree that all avenues of research should be trodden. Itīs just that I prefer leaving it to others, since I sit tight with a scenario that I think covers the whole thing without a weak spot around. I donīt have to cut four inches of from my suspect, und so weiter and so forth. I sincerely believe that as far as the evidence goes, there is no other scenario that can be put forward that covers the different details with such ease. Sooner or later, those who try have a tendency of running into trouble, logically.
That, as I say, does not mean that I wonīt listen. I do.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

You overlook that these men were neighbors with Israel Lipski when he murdered the girl. It's not weird at all for them to have adopted the name for their own purposes. Fact is this, BS Man stopped at the gates of the club, talked to Stride, pulled her AWAY from the gates and she ended up on the ground. This is at a time other clubmembers have Eagle entering the club through the passage. If BS man was Eagle he was not her killer, just a clubman annoyed at prostitutes in his club's yard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This is another thing altogether! I most sincerely agree that all avenues of research should be trodden. Itīs just that I prefer leaving it to others, since I sit tight with a scenario

Then what joy can you get out of these discussions from those of us who haven't bet all their money on one horse? Do you just enjoy slowing down or stifling discussion with your one-trick pony (puns intended)? Incidentally, your scenario boosts Schwartz up to the level of perfect witness and disposes of a truckload of other evidence...some just as viable, some moreso. But I digress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Howard Brown]

"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.

[harry]

Tom,
Minutia or not,if one wants to get a proper perspective of what may show the truth of a happening,then there should be no limit set.I would be happy to accept that Diemscultz felt the pony shied because of the body beig there,if he indeed made a statement to that effect,and that statement has been recorded.Not a lot to ask.I myself have not seen or read of any such statement.

Fisherman,
Perhaps the wind did swirl around in the yard.All the more reason that any smell present would in that narrow space have been dispersed widely around the area,including the yard entrance.

[The Good Michael]

People who live in trailer parks sometimes call each other trailer trash.

Poor white people call others white trash.

Some African Americans call others N***ers, and not in a nice way.

Radical, atheistic Jews would certainly be antisemitic at times, and the use of Lipski, if as frequently tossed around as some contemporaries said, would most assuredly be picked up by those same Jews and tossed in the faces of others.

Cheers,

Mike

[Howard Brown]

Good points,Good Michael.

To take it a step further, Orthodox Jews ( Hasidics) in some circumstances considered Zionist Jews the twin brothers of National Socialists. Zionism was considered the mental or spiritual equivalent of what the "Nazis" did physically to people who happened to be Jewish. I recommend watching the (dreadful but edumacational...) film, The Chosen for a demonstration of this internecine squabbling between factions of Jewry.

I'll bring over a link I found from a Rabbi on the lefty Jews in an 1890 newspaper article in a minute to illustrate that point.

Here youse go ....

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=50278#post50278

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"You overlook that these men were neighbors with Israel Lipski when he murdered the girl."

No, Tom, I do not. And you are only close to truth here, as Batty Street was a block away. It is close, but then again, the Ripper territory was a very small one, and in a way, all the people living there were of course each othersīneighbours.
But the proximity in distance does not mean that it would have been any more credible for jews to hurl jewish names as insults towards fellow jews. And THAT is were the rub lies in this question. The Pakistanies of todayīs East End do not go around calling each other "Pakkies" in an insulting fashion, just as they dont use any other ethnically Pakistani derived insulting names, although you have a good comparison in the group of Pakistanies that have given up the traditional Moslem way of doing things, and who will not obey the bids of their religion.
It just does not add up, Tom. If a jew was to cal another jew Lipski, I think the only circumstances in which that would occur would be inbetween friends and with a self-ironic touch: "were all Lipskis anyway". Insults and threats? No.

The part of BS man pulling Stride away from the club, yes, I could buy that a clubman would be able to do such a thing. But we are left with the "Lipsky" expresion, and that gives the whole thing away - that was NO jew doing the pulling, Tom.

"Then what joy can you get out of these discussions from those of us who haven't bet all their money on one horse? Do you just enjoy slowing down or stifling discussion with your one-trick pony (puns intended)? Incidentally, your scenario boosts Schwartz up to the level of perfect witness and disposes of a truckload of other evidence...some just as viable, some moreso. But I digress."

Like I said, Tom, I always listen. And I am happy to discuss it all in length, comparing it to my own beliefs. I am always interested in other thoughts on the matter, and I am completely baffled by how many new ideas that can surface on the matter. Given the fact that a 120 years have passes, it is remarkable that it has not all been emptied long ago.
Finally, I realize that although I think that the scenario I prefer is as close to a watertight scenario that you can get in a matter like this, it may in the end prove completely wrong. And when I challenge for example your wiews, just as I challenge most people who think it was a Ripper deed, I do so because I have not yet seen a theory that answers up to all the difficult questions asked in the Stride case in as useful a manner as my own theory does. This does not mean that I am a big enough fool to actually believe that I am right in all instances. Much as I think that it all points to a domestic scenario, I am convinced that if the truth was revealed to us, I would be wrong on a number of things. Details that none of us could have foreseen would surface, showing us that our interpretations of details are wrong, however much they seem to fit with our theories today.
I agree with you, Tom; to lock yourself onto a theory, locking ears and brain simultaneously, would bore you stiff sooner or later. So I listen alright. Itīs just that I have found no reason to change my mindset on the case so far. The day you produce a picture that covers the whole thing better, Iīll join your camp immediately.
The fact that I have gone from being a fervent believer in Joe Flemings innocense, to joining sides with those who see him as the killer, goes to prove my words, I think.
Give me a better case and Iīll pounce on it, simple as that.

The best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"Perhaps the wind did swirl around in the yard.All the more reason that any smell present would in that narrow space have been dispersed widely around the area,including the yard entrance."

It is quite easy, Harry: If the wind blew in one direction: Yes. If it blew in the other: No.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:
"Good points,Good Michael."

Donīt believe him, Mike. These are not good points. The reason being that when an African American calls another African American an "Uncle Tom ******", it is because African American number one have spotted that African American number two holds opinions that do not tally with his own.
In Schwartzīcase, how in the name of God was BS man supposed to know that he was a confessional jew? Did it say so on a plaque on his back? Was he wearing a priestsīrobe? I think not. It has been said that he was poshly dressed, thus not resembling a traditional jewish confessor at all. And though he had a Jewish appearance, that appearance may just as well have hidden a man that held the same convictions as the jews in the clubhouse (a suggestion that has been brought forward by Tom, I believe). And since Schwartz did not say that he recognized BS man, there is good reason to believe that the same applied in the opposite direction too.
So how was BS man sure that he could afford to call Schwartz Lipski? The answer is simple - he was not.
Therefore, we are back to the old question:
If a man hurls an insult at a jew, implying that he himself does not like jews - the insult "Lipski" being a very good example - then what is the more likely guess:
1. The insulter is a jew who used derogatory wordings about jews to insult other jews...
or
2. The insulter was a gentile who did not like jews.

Why is it so hard to move with the simpler explanation? The last time you and me exchanged words were when you stated that Diemschitzīpony may well have been scared by the Ripper looming in Dutfields Yard, and not by a corpse in the dark, reeking with bloodscent.
Thereīs nothing wrong in a lively fantasy, Iīll give you that, Mike. But dismissing the more obvious alternative in favour of an incredibly far-fetched one is not very productive.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I suggest that the assailant or Club Bouncer knew that Schwartz wasn't one of them. That may have been enough to call him a Lipski. The Club was kind of gang territory. Remember, new members were brought in by old members. It was a radical, fraternal organization, made up of young, perhaps disenfranchized men. I see an epithet hurled at an unknown passerby, by a drinking member, as not farfetched, nor fantastical, but perhaps common. Again, this may be a territorial thing as much as anything else.

Cheers,

Mike

[Howard Brown]

Howard Brown writes:
"Good points,Good Michael."

Donīt believe him, Mike. These are not good points.

Fisherman...you're asking Mike to not accept the points that he just mentioned and obviously feels worth consideration.

The reason being that when an African American calls another African American an "Uncle Tom ******", it is because African American number one have spotted that African American number two holds opinions that do not tally with his own.

You don't know too many negroes on a personal level,it seems. The use of that word by 'em is used for a variety of reasons. ****** is used for a term of endearment as well as an epithet.

I believe that BSMan was not Jewish and yet,if I was wrong,its still not impossible for a Jewish BSMan to utter that word to Schwartz. I was merely trying to point out that Tom Wescott was correct in his comments at the outset....that it wasn't then nor is it now far fetched to consider a Jew castigating another Jewish person with an anti-Semitic epithet. I have witnessed and heard such banter.

If Tom's point is that a Jew from within the IWEMC building snapped at Schwartz during the altercation with Stride and because the socialist Jew/BSMan for a brief moment took Schwartz to be a religious,anti-socialist Jew..then I agree with him.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"I suggest that the assailant or Club Bouncer knew that Schwartz wasn't one of them. That may have been enough to call him a Lipski."

I have no problems seeing how you judge it all, Mike. But I donīt think it holds any water at all. Much as the clubbers may have felt at some sort of war with traditional jewish (and, I should thing, societal in general) values, I donīt think it would have manifested itself in insulting fellow jews whoīs mental disposition they knew nothing about. If so, one would expect this to be a common practise on their behalf. The streets were crammed with jews in the area and at that time. Do you really believe that the clubbers spent their days and evenings taking turns at the gates, calling everybody with a jewish appearance "Lipski", "jewish swine" or "sons of jewish whores"?
Moreover, Lipsi did not represent any orthodox jewish thinking, and so he would not have been a very good target for those kinds of sentiments. What Lipski did was to divide society into two parts, one of them mainly made up of those who thought he had it coming since he killed his woman, and those who thought that were in general gentiles. Those who saw him as a heroe, were normally jews who thought that he was the victim of a miscarriage of law due to the fact that he was a jew. Correct me if Iīm wrong, Mike. But sentiments like these are NOT the kind of things that would lead jews revolting against traditional judaism to pick up on using "Lipski" as an insult against people they believed not to support their cause.
It is all a very far-fetched argument you are promoting here, and Iīm afraid it is one that I think lacks value.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"Fisherman...you're asking Mike to not accept the points that he just mentioned and obviously feels worth consideration"

That I am. And I apologize if it was taken up as something derogatory, since it was not meant in that way. Everybody has a right to hold an opinion, no matter how wrong you consider that opinion yourself. In this case, for reasons that I have explained and that I will proceed to explain in this post, I sincerely believe that it is not a viable suggestion. But you are correct, Howard; much as I donīt want anything of it, it does not mean that others may without being slighted for it.

"You don't know too many negroes on a personal level,it seems. "

No, I donīt. They can be counted by using the fingers of one of my hands. Black people are not as common here in Sweden as in the anglican countires. But since there are vary many other nationalities around, I feel I have every tool I need to discuss this matter. Sweden is the country in the world that has received most foreigners and refugees over the past decades. Right now our government is trying to tell the US government that it would be nice if they helped a few of the Iraquis they have bombed out of Irak, instead of relying on countires like Sweden to take that blow.
But THAT is for a VERY different thread - I just felt that I needed to show you that Swedes are not people unaccustomed to living with groups of differing nationalities and religions.

"it wasn't then nor is it now far fetched to consider a Jew castigating another Jewish person with an anti-Semitic epithet."

I think that it IS far-fetched, Howard, and I think that just HOW far-fetched it is, depends very much on the given situation. If a jew cons somebody in an affair, another jew may say "You sly jew, you" to him with a sort of admiration, recognizing the fact that both jews will have heard the slander that jews are deceitful businessmen - it becomes a way of creating a shield towards the outer world, admitting that they are in the same boat, both victims of a suspicious surrounding. And yes, in such situations you can hear a jew saying something derogatory by calling a fellow jew by a jewish epiteth. But the situation referred to tells us that it is nothing you can compare to the case of Schwartz and BS man.
Would you yourself scorn a fellow christian by calling him "Darn christian!"

"its still not impossible for a Jewish BSMan to utter that word to Schwartz"

No itīs not - but it is very, very improbable to my mind. It is very illogical, for reasons I have given in my answers to Tom and Mike. And much as I admit that ANYTHING can be said to anyone by anyone as long as people have tongues in their mouths, I think that the point that it is incredibly much more credible that a scorn like that of "Lipski" is uttered by a gentile in the direction of a (presumed) jew must be recognized.

My wiew is that the whole Stride case is littered with suggestions that hold very little water, if any. Many of them leak like plastic buckets subjected to shotgun-fire. "Ah, a jew is insulted for being a jew - must have been another jew that did it", "Look, a woman has had her throat cut - must have been an eviscerator that was interrupted", "Holy crap, look how that guy is manhandling that woman - I bet a serial killer will step into it all and finish her off", "Sure enough. And when he has done that he will probably go west to get himself another one - only to turn east again, right into the hornetīs nest of police searching the place", "Good god, my horse shied to the left as I passed a blood-soaked corpse of a woman - that would imply that there is a serial killer lurking somewhere in the shadows here. Why else would my streetwise pony be spooked?"

In each -each! - of these cases, we can come up with infinitely more credible alternative explanations to why things went down the way they did, all of them being supported by empirical knowledge as well as statistics. But no, instead I am asked why I am so dead set on disbelieving things.
The answer is the same in every case: because there is an alternative around that offers a more sensible and credible wiew.

The best, Howard!
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

"You don't know too many negroes on a personal level,it seems. "

(edit: Fisherman is quoting Howard Brown above)

No, I donīt. They can be counted by using the fingers of one of my hands. Black people are not as common here in Sweden as in the anglican countires.

Hi Fisherman

Maybe I should put you in touch with my delightful son who lives in Stockholm and then you'll have to use two hands.

Hi Howard

Do you still use the term 'negro'? I'm surprised.