Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[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]

I wonīt tell you what animal your stubborness leads my thoughts too, Mike, save to say that if you had itīs ears, I would much hope for you to make use of them!
You have a few good points, and a few bad ones. They donīt differ from what they were like from the outset. Iīll 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 Schwartzīlooks 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. Itīs not about my disability to understand what you are saying, Mike - itīs about my conviction that you are wrong.

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]

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. Iīve 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

[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.

[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

[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

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

Schwartz doesn't seem to have been a club member as it wasn't mentioned, whereas several other members were named. It is somewhat suspicious, however that he was coming home on that particular route, and if he was giving a cover story for the club, I'm sure they wouldn't mention if he was a member.

I'm going to send an email to William Fishman and see if he can dig up any info on club members.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Mike,

Remember that Schwartz had lived on Berner Street until that very day. He was busy moving. He was a recent Jewish immigrant and from the Star reporter's description, was not Hassidic. He was also a young man. It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club. We don't know what all the police knew because we don't have the papers. What we do know is that they took Schwartz seriously at first, made a couple of arrests based on his information, and then came to the conclusion he might not be telling the truth. The ONLY police support we have for him is in Abberline's original (and no longer surviving) report. But then, Abberline expressed similar confidence in George Hutchinson in the beginning, only to see him fizzle out and be considered less than honest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Well, if Schwartz is lying, there might be no BS Man, no Pipeman, and only a dead woman and a club member who escorted her. If Schwartz is a member, the club would have all its angle covered.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, if Schwartz is lying there were no BS Man or Pipeman. Unless he were paid to lie to put a twist on something that DID occur in case it were witnessed. That's not too farfetched considering Charles Le Grand paid Matthew Packer to lie and Le Grand was the spitting image of Pipeman, traveled with ruffians who abused women on the street, and happened to be in that very area of the city at that very time. Hmmm.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

Hello Tom,

I'm certianly not adverse to the idea of Schwartz being a pork pie salesman
with the profits going to the club, so to speak.

But...

"It would be utterly remarkable if he were neighbors with young men just like himself but did not enjoy an acquaintance and/or frequent the club."

Abraham Heshburg might not think it so "utterly remarkable".

Thanks for you time,

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"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."

Exactly so, Harry. And witness psychology dictates that the very moment when something suddenly erupts, someone hitting somebody, someone pulling out a gun etcetera, is the moment that will edge itself most efficiently into the mind of the witness. Before and after that, things may be more blurred in the memory, but - just to give an example - the split second when BS man grabbed hold of Stride and tried to drag her into the street, is the moment when the witness is most inclined to take in lots of information - and get much of it right.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Yes, if Schwartz is lying there were no BS Man or Pipeman. Unless he were paid to lie to put a twist on something that DID occur in case it were witnessed."

Iīm slightly troubled by this, Tom. Do you mean that Schwartz would have been there, but told a story that differed from what happened, or do you mean that he was just a hired misinformant who was never even there?
In each case, but maybe mostly so in the last one, I think it would be a strange thing to hire a man who did not speak English, and then provide him with an interpreter. It would involve more risks that somebody got something terribly wrong. Just a thought.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

witness psychology dictates that the very moment when something suddenly erupts, someone hitting somebody, someone pulling out a gun etcetera, is the moment that will edge itself most efficiently into the mind of the witness. Before and after that, things may be more blurred in the memory, but - just to give an example - the split second when BS man grabbed hold of Stride and tried to drag her into the street, is the moment when the witness is most inclined to take in lots of information - and get much of it right.

Hi Fisherman,

To be fair, though, this usually only holds when the witness feels to be under threat themselves (when the gun is pulled, when the shady character in a bulky jacket stands stock still on a crowded street). There's no real reason to suppose this was the case in our example.